Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva


This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
Index
Archive 1 (Oct. 18, 2006 through Feb. 17, 2007)
Archive 2 (Feb. 21, 2007 through Sep. 2007 )
Archive 3 (Aug. 2007 through Oct. 2007)
Archive 4 (Oct. 2007 through Nov. 2007)
Archive 5 (Nov. 2007 through Jan. 2008)
Archive 6 (Jan. 2008 through Feb. 2008)
Archive 7 (Feb. 2008 through Mar. 2008)
Archive 8 (Mar. 2008)
Archive 9 (Mar. 2008 through Apr. 2008)
Archive 10 (Apr. 2008)
Archive 11 (2008)
Archive 12 (2008)
Archive 13 (2008)
Archive 14 (2008)
Archive 15 (2008)
Archive 16 (2008)
Shortcut:
WT:NRHP

Contents

Table-izing the state NRHP lists

For several weeks i've been plugging along "table-izing" the List of RHPs in IN, List of RHPs in CA, and I am currently up to Orange county alphabetically within List of RHPs in NY. Other apparently completely table-ized state lists that i am aware of include List of RHPs in FL, List of RHPs in MA, and List of RHPs in OH.

This seems to me to be productive and often is very-well-appreciated work, as it enables local wikipedians such as User:Royalbroil in Indiana, User:Rosiestep in Nevada County, California, User:DanTD in Nassau County, NY to upload their photos. Rosiestep even awarded me a barnstar for creating the Nevada County table, encouraging me to go on to do the rest of California too. :) Unexpectedly, I find that i encounter new people, like User:LtPowers, who is adding pics in Monroe County, New York. It also makes apparent the cumulative long-term productive efforts of NRHPers such as, in New York State, Daniel Case, Dmadeo, Lvklock, Mwanner, and Cg-realms, who have created numerous articles and added their photos over a long time. It's fun, at least for an NRHP enthusiast, to array their pics all at once. :)

There's a fair amount of work involved in table-izing any state or county list, beyond pasting in the Elkman county-list-table generator output, which is of course essential. I add a google table link, and I usually check that and comment out any coordinates that seem to be obviously incorrect. I use a standard footnote disclaimer, now in a template, about the quality of NRIS coordinates. I make it a point to check for and indicate any National Historic Landmarks present in a county. I promote some or all photos available from articles. There are numerous wikilinks to fix. And I do not delete the previous RHP list entries in place, except where I verify that all info is incorporated in the new tables. There are occasionally RHPs listed which are valid RHPs but which are not provided in the Elkman tables.

Currently, to me, this seems more productive than stubbing new NRHP articles or almost anything else. doncram (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've table-ized all of Alabama, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ohio and Michigan and am in the process of working through the Massachusetts counties while trying to update all of the states through listings of 8/8/2008 (I'm about half-way through the latter task). As I move through the counties, I've been disambiguating as many entries as possible. One frustration for me is that when lists are table-ized, the table-izer doesn't always preserve disambiguated links from the previous lists (thus negating disambiguation work that I and others have done). When I table-ize a list, I do all of the following:
  • Add the GeoGroupTemplate
  • Make sure that disambiguations are carried forward into the table version
  • Check for misdirected links and disambiguate where necessary (Elkman's "Who has" tool is indispensible for this task)
  • Search for photos
  • Read the geocodes coordinates into Google Earth to try and spot listings that are outside the geographic borders of the list on which I'm working and adjust them as necessary
  • Renumber the lists when necessary
  • Verify that the "complete as of" date is accurate
  • Convert dates to dts2 format where necessary
  • Make other adjustments to links (e.g. change Smith, John, House to John Smith House and piping links they don't take up so much column space)
I have a fairly automated process for the tedious tasks of renumbering tables after inserting new listings or breaking out lists (e.g., city lists from counties with too many listings to fit under the 100k recommended article size limit) and converting dates to dts2 format. I'm happy to do so if folks want to point me to tables that need this work done. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
One other thing i usually do, is reorder the table to move churches named "St. Mary's" etc. to fit alphabetically at "Saint Mary's".
Otherwise, seems like Sanfranman59 has been doing a more complete job than i have. Truthfully, i have been leaving a considerable amount of work to be done in many county lists, in sections labelled "to be merged into table above". That's where i leave the prior list information that i have not yet verified is covered in the new tables. When I do try to verify all, sometimes i find entries there not covered in the table. These can derive from:
      • from NRHP listings that are covered in regular Elkman generator, but not included in table (this happens sometimes, I have noticed)
      • possibly other old, valid listings not covered in generator or table (conceivable, not sure this happens)
      • sometimes erroneous information added by locals or others
      • brand new NRHP listings that have been added since Elkman's 4/2008 last database download, by updaters such as Sanfranman59 from the weekly new listings
And i usually just leave such items in a section retitled "to be researched and/or merged into table above". It's beyond me to solve all of these. For the 4th category, it could perhaps be helpful if NRHP updaters would indicate the date added, along with the name, of new listings, to explain why those are there. However, if there is a new NRHP update for Elkman's table generator, then such extra work would prove to be unnecessary, so I am not really asking for that, just noticing the issue. doncram (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
When adding recent listings to pages that have not yet been table-ized, I haven't been including the "date added" information since none of the other listings have this information. However, I do try to include this information in my edit summaries, so you could check the page history if you want confirmation. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a lot of work to table-ize a whole state. I have recently figured out how to go through the NRHP program's new listings of NRHPs, back to 4/2008, to properly fill out the tables generated from the Elkman county-table-generator tool, which is based on a 4/2008 download of NRIS data. I first created tables for each of New York's 62 counties using the tool, and then I went back and searched the NRHP listings for all New York entries since April and added a row for each one manually in the appropriate county's table. New York State has approximately 5,000 NRHPs, by the way. I tallied up the NY counties within a table in List of RHPs in NY, and am keeping track there of the counties that i or others have finished fixing up tables in terms of capturing disambiguation info, pipelinks, other info from the previous lists.
Nv8200p is table-izing in List of RHPs in TX, by the way. TX has 247 counties i think, i think that is the most counties in any state, but i am guessing NY will still have the most individual NRHPs. doncram (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Another step in the evolving process is: Look at the Google maps and examine all outliers. In some cases, the coordinates for a given site are clearly wrong, in which case i comment out the NRIS coordinates and explain in the comment how i know they are wrong. In other cases, it is the NRIS county and/or other location descriptors (reflected in Elkman and in NRHP.COM listings) which need to be corrected, and the entry needs to be moved to the appropriate county list. For these, I now add the location error in wp:NRIS info issues for reporting to the National Register later and to document the correction.
How much of an error should we be concerned about? A few feet or a block or a 1/4 mile? Any suggestions? And BTW, TX has 254 counties, but who's counting? 25or6to4 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
But not all of them have registered historic properties in them and are not in the list of RHPs in Texas. I am guessing there are just 247 counties listed -Nv8200p talk 16:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I use the "Map of all coordinates" link with either Google Maps or Google Earth to identify locations that have coordinates that fall outside the geographic area covered by the article. If the NRIS listing has an address or an intersection, I plug that into Google and replace the coordinates from NRIS with those from Google. If there's no address, I do a little surfing to try and find information elsewhere about the location and again get the coordinates from Google Maps/Earth. For historic districts, it can be more complicated, but I figure as long as I get the coordinates in the neighborhood, it's better than having nothing at all. I'm not sure that I've answered your question, but I think tolerability is in the eye of the beholder. If I come across something that's off by a city block, I'll correct it. Much less than that and I think you start getting into a splitting of hairs type of situation. Keep up the good work on the Texas tables! --Sanfranman59 (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And another step, pointed out by Mwanner who has been fixing up several Adirondack counties' list, is to add inbound links, for example to go to the correspoonding article about the county, and add a link to the list-article. doncram (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not actually in Nassau County, New York(I grew up in Suffolk County), but I've noticed some problems with table-izing the county NRHP lists. The whole point for making separate NRHP county lists for various counties and other municipalities is to reduce the size of the state lists. The trouble is, adding some tables enlarges them, and makes loading the page a drag, espescially when you try to add photos. ----DanTD (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The next logical step would be cities, I suppose. Look at Columbia, SC in Richland County. It has 115 entries all by itself. That should merit it's own list, I'd think. Dunno how one would subdivide further than that, though there's probably places where it would help. --Ebyabe (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I suupose that would be okay, except thatSuffolk County, New York doesn't really have any cities. Nassau County, New York does have two cities; Glen Cove, and Long Beach. The Suffolk County list has a few sites listed in vague and incorrect locations. I had to correct one that was in Ridge, but was listed as being in Brookhaven, New York, and I've seen some others like that. Right now, I'm going to correct the Montauk Point Lighthouse, and remove it from it's false listing as being in East Hampton, New York. ----DanTD (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
In Suffolk County, there are 36 sites in Huntington, 17 in East Hampton and 13 each in Cold Spring Harbor and Southampton. If you break them out into separate lists, that should help some. You could also break the table into multiple pages in alphabetical groups by city/town. I don't think it's necessary to do anything with the Nassau County list (it loads pretty quickly on my system), but you could break out Oyster Bay (16 sites), Sea Cliff (15) and Roslyn (12) if you think it necessary. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The Montauk Point Lighthouse shows in the Elkman-table as being in East Hampton, because NRIS shows East Hampton as the nearest city (as is shown also in the Elkman individual NRHP infobox for it). The Elkman-table appears to use best-available location info, which in some cases is the "nearest city". I don't think there is any way to improve upon that centrally; it requires local expertise like DanTD provides to put in a more accurate location into the table, for a specific site. DanTD put in Montauk, New York, which is described as a hamlet and a Census-designated place now; perhaps it was even less than that when the lighthouse was listed on the NRHP. I think showing East Hampton in the table, although not precisely accurate, is a better start than providing no location info if NRIS gives only a "nearest city" location. doncram (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

County courthouse photos online

Found this link while looking for information about the courthouse in Washington, Virginia (which may soon be one of my projects). It's a USDA site, and the pictures were taken by a USDA officer, so I suspect they could be classed as government property and therefore free use. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 14:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is on that website: "Most information presented on the USDA Web site is considered public domain information. Public domain information may be freely distributed or copied, but use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. Attribution may be cited as follows: "U. S. Department of Agriculture."" I think we can use them with attribution.--Appraiser (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I knew that sounded familiar. It's true, we can use them. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 1#County Courthouse photo collection for more information. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming discussion for "List of Registered Historic Places in ..."

Where did the discussion go? I don't think this was resolved, and just now Motorrad renamed what was "List of Registered Historic Places in New York", an article that i have been working on. I don't "own" that article, but i have been doing a lot of work on it and county articles it indexes. And I did not see a resolution in the discussion before. Motorrad moved it to one name that I believe is grammatically incorrect, and I just moved it to a different name that is at least grammatically and semantically correct, though i don't claim it is the best. doncram (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Arizona, Wisconsin, and New York were moved to names of the form "National Register of Historic Places in ____". I think that is ungrammatical. I think "List of Registered Historic Places in ___" is more descriptive, is clear for the general reader, and is better for the wikipedia. Also, in the previous discussions, I asked for any examples of documents within the NRHP program that list the properties and districts in any subarea, yet i have seen none. I don't believe that Motorrad or anyone else has documented what the National Register would do for a list like this. And then it is a different question of what is the best choice for list titles in wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia with a vastly different audience and purpose than internal workings of a U.S. government agency. doncram (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of where this will wind up, User:Motorrad-67 should have looked for consensus before moving it (especially since in the Wisconsin article was moved via cut and paste before he learned about the move button). doncram moved it to a different name, which is also problematic. Let's put everything back the way it was until consensus is reached. dm (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I caught Motorrad-67's move of the Wisconsin article on my watchlist and I did a proper move to make sure it complied with the GDFL. I assumed it was a consensus-based uncontroversial move. The move should be undone. I have no opinion what the right name should be, just that all of the Wisconsin county articles should share the same very similar name with the state article. I gave Motoradd an explanation on how to move properly with the move button. Royalbroil 03:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I undid the Arizona cut and paste move. I hope that this WikiProject can determine consensus so that this issue can get completed. Made up titles are bad, but I don't understand the alternatives. "List of..." makes sense in Wikipedia's naming scheme. What's the official name of the government agency in charge of the historic places, or what is the name that the agency uses for the program? Royalbroil 12:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The earlier discussions are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 15 and Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals. Those discussions may have petered out without achieving consensus, but the fundamental issue remains: the title "Registered Historic Places" is a Wikipedia neologism that should not be used in articles, article titles, or category names. Note that I cited similar "intellectual sloppiness" in my objections to the featured list candidacy of a list of National Historic Landmarks. Sloppy nomenclature is holding back this project by detracting from the quality of some otherwise excellent NRHP and NHL articles. --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The name of the federal agency is "National Park Service." The name of the register is "National Register of Historic Places." I hope that my recent actions spur on efforts to get this situation remedied and that we get rid of "made-up" terminology with no basis in federal law -- oh yes, that is the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The changes I made, since reversed, were to correct bad and erroneous terminology. Fact is not based on consensus. BTW, how is "consensus" defined on Wikipedia when you have thousands of viewers? How many thousand must agree? Motorrad-67 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The renaming controversy has been ignored for a while since consensus wasn't coming together. I think perhaps we were trying to kill too many birds at once, and maybe we can agree on one piece at a time. I would suggest changing List of Registered Historic Places in Wisconsin to List of entries on the National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin. It is lengthier, but more correct, IMO. And all corresponding state and county lists should follow the same pattern.--Appraiser (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Not my first preference, but better than surrealism — so I agree. Now, how many thousand have to agree to do this? Motorrad-67 (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Not thousands, but a strong majority of the people who comment after a several days aways works. In general, you'll find that most groups/WikiProjects try to work together to reach a solution that is agreeable to almost everyone (or at least not very distasteful to the minority who oppose). The validity of the arguments do matter. See WP:PRACTICAL at WP:CONSENSUS for specifics. Admin action to determine consensus is not needed except in cases where a group needs someone impartial to determine consensus. Standard naming conventions would start the article with the words "List of...". What name(s) do you suggest, Motorrad? Can you think of a more concise way to word it (that starts with "List of")? The names used right now are only temporary until consensus can hopefully be determined. Royalbroil 15:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I think Appraiser's suggestion above would be fine under the circumstances. Motorrad-67 (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Like Motorrad-67, Appraiser's suggestion is not my first preference but it is better than the invented name "Registered Historic Places" and other invented names that were proposed in the earlier discussion. As I stated earlier, I believe that the National Register is itself a list, and "entries on" means simply "items on a list," so this proposed title boils down to the rather redundant "List of [list items] on the [list] in Wisconsin." Therefore, I prefer names that avoid one or both of the words "list" and "entries". For example, I would prefer National Register of Historic Places entries in Wisconsin. (As can be seen from skimming the article names linked at Wikipedia:Featured lists, not every list absolutely needs to begin with the words "List of.") --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I very much dislike any suggestion where "Places" is followed immediately by a noun.--Appraiser (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Orlandy's suggestion works for me, too. I am flexible, but just want to get rid of the invented phrase. My personal preference would be National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin. Nothing more is really needed. It's a register, period. But either of the above suggestions is better than the current fictional nomenclature. Motorrad-67 (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I read the archived discussion (at the time and again now) and I don't understand the objection to the current list names. (Disclaimer: I recognize that my thinking is undoubtedly influenced by the fact that I've been working with them so much out here that they're familiar to me now.) They're lists, the contents of which are historic places that are officially registered by the NPS (i.e. they're registered historic places). It seems to me that the current names convey all of the pertinent information as clearly and accurately as the other suggested names. A Google search of the phrase (lowercase) "registered historic places" at the NPS website returns a few (albeit very few ... 32) documents/web pages; a Google book search returns 83 hits, including at least one book published by the U.S. Congress, several by the U.S. National Trust for Historic Preservation and several hits in the Code of Federal Regulations; a search of the ProQuest newspaper database returned 35 articles dating back to 2000 with this exact phrase. So use of this phrase is not unheard of. Is the objection that we're creating a proper noun (neologizing) by capitalizing "Registered Historic Places" as if it's some kind of official phrase? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Whether Wikipedia editors have invented a new proper noun in "Registered Historic Places" or merely adopted one that was invented by a sloppy journalist or lazy bureaucrat, it's not a valid term. It's not even valid to call these "registered historic places." All names that use the word "registered" are incorrect. The word "registered" generally means that a person (or property owner) has voluntarily signed up for some sort of status -- for example, a child is "registered" in school or a guesthouse is "registered" with the local tourist office (or an historic building is "registered" with a local government for some sort of recognition). In contrast, properties on the NRHP are not "registered." In the case of the National Register, the property owner (or local preservation organization) submits an application to the National Park Service, which evaluates the application and decides whether or not to list (or "enter") the property on the National Register of Historic Places. (Nobody ever "registers" anything. The operative verbs are "list (on)" and "enter (onto).") --Orlady (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please folks, can't we try to get rid of fiction and make Wikipedia fact based? I am sure that if you search hard enough you can find some obscure reference to justify anything you want to justify, like "Hitler was God's gift to women." We all know what the National Register of Historic Places is and what its official name is — it's even in Wikipedia. If you enter "Registered Historic Places" see where it sends you. Why fight it? Let's just start fixing an obvious error and get on with it. Motorrad-67 (talk)

I'm still missing the distinction that Orlady is attempting to make. Definition for the verb form of "register" from the Oxford English Dictionary: "1.a. To set down (facts, names, etc.) formally in writing; to enter or record in a precise manner." ... from the American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 2000: "1a. A formal or official recording of items, names, or actions. 1b. A book for such entries. 1c. An entry in such a record. 2. The act of registering." ... from Merriam-Webster: "1.a.: to make or secure official entry of in a register 1.b.: to enroll formally especially as a voter or student 1.c.: to record automatically : INDICATE 1.d.: to make a record of : NOTE".
To Motorrad ... I doubt that anyone disputes the name of the Register. I disagree that there's anything factually incorrect or fictitious about using the phrase "registered historic places" in this context. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Your comment caused me to do some additional research. I found out that the term "registration" is used officially in connection with the NRHP. Specifically, the "National Register Registration Form" is used to nominate a "property" for consideration for listing on the National Register. --Orlady (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Sanfranman. Just because something isn't "official" doesn't mean it can't be used, or hasn't been used. Just because the U.S. government isn't using "Registered Historic Places" as the official term doesn't mean it's "fiction". Semantics aside, the argument for switching the article name(s) to a grammatically incoherent statement is weak. These are my thoughts on this issue. I oppose any name change to 50+ articles satisfy one or two editors semantics argument.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I am finding this discussion bizarre. Here's what I see:
We are discussing lists derived from the National Register of Historic Places, and whose scope is clearly defined by and intimately linked to the National Register. In the official terminology of the National Register program, in use over the last 42 years, items listed in the Register are collectively called "properties" and include "districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture."[1]
Some Wikipedia contributors don't like the official terminology, and decided that items listed in the NRHP should have been called "registered historic places" instead. Indeed, these Wikipedia contributors like this invented term so well that they render it as if it were a proper noun, "Registered Historic Places," and are arguing for its retention because they think their term is superior to the terminology used by the entity to which these lists are intimately linked. At a minimum, they are suggesting that it is important to retain their incorrect neologism because changing the names of existing articles would involve work.
Wikipedia should not be using this invented term because Wikipedia describes topics as they are -- and as documented by others, not as we would wish them to be. If you don't like the NRHP's official terminology, try to sell your substitute terminology to the National Park Service and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, but please don't use Wikipedia to disseminate the created terminology until after the official terminology has changed.
Lists whose scope is defined by the NRHP should hew closely to the NRHP terminology related to those lists. If people want to create lists of "historic places" that are "registered" by entities other than the NRHP, then the term "registered historic places" might be appropriate, but it should not be rendered as a proper noun -- and it appears that these lists would be outside the scope of this Wikiproject. --Orlady (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
PS - The work required to rename these lists would be trivial in comparison with the time and energy that has gone into this debate. --Orlady (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Orlandy, for a thoughtful and insightful commentary. I fail to understand the resistance to using correct terminology in an "encyclopedia."
But, then, I fail to understand why anyone would vote for a candidate who was 894th out of 899 in his college graduating class and who was AWOL for more votes than any other U. S. Senator when they could vote for a top Harvard Law School graduate who has excellent proposals to offer and is one of the most brilliant candidates ever to run for office. I guess my understandings overall are limited. Motorrad-67 (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should migrate to the correct terminology, but since it is a lot of work, I'm satisfied to get there gradually, one "class" of errors at a time. (I agree with you on the other thing too.)--Appraiser (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone here is resisting using "the correct terminology". The problem is that what is the correct terminology to use in this context is not clear. Orlady and Motorrad seem driven by the importance of avoiding a coining a neologism, and that motivates me and others here to take this discussion seriously as well. Currently, I would favor a longer descriptive phrase such as List of properties and districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places in New York. That name uses "list" or "register" as a noun or verb 3 times, so it has the appearance of some redundancy, but it is accurate. However, I expect we could do still better. doncram (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I am trying not to take offense at Orlady's repeated use of the term "intellectual sloppiness" in these discussions, and trying not take offense at the suggestions that there is an obvious solution that I or we are resisting. To be just a tad pointed about this, I do not find Orlady's comment in which Orlady asserts "Some Wikipedia contributors don't like the official terminology" to be very thoughtful or helpful at all. It could be argued that anyone participating here is sloppy, lazy, ignorant, stupid, etc. for neglecting to take into account any of numerous and conflicting wikipedia guidelines that have some relevance here. I don't believe that anyone's arguments or suggestions here are perfect. doncram (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that no one argument or suggestion is perfect. Also, I believe that everyone participating in this discussion has a good-faith interest in making the best possible decision. I sympathize with the logic behind the "Registered Historic Places" term, and have deliberately avoided trying to find out who used the term in the first place, because it truly doesn't matter who was behind it. The issue is whether and how it should be changed, now that an issue has been pointed out. I continue to contend that "Some Wikipedia contributors don't like the official terminology," as that is that exact sentiment that has been expressed by several participants in these discussions. As for "intellectual sloppiness," I'm afraid that's the way I see much of the vigorous defense that was offered for retaining the terminology after it was been shown to be incorrect. --Orlady (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, if it is not already clear from my support of having this and the previous discussions, that I support some change. Perhaps I should have been more clear to you earlier that I did support making a change, despite my opposing the specific options B to L previously suggested. Interestingly, the current suggestions by Cbl62 and Orlady here are different, benefitting from the "vigorous" previous discussion.
By the way, it appears that it was Sfoskett, whose recent edits are about automobiles, who split out List of Registered Historic Places in Wisconsin, List of Registered Historic Places in New York, and all the other states on 27 December 2005. I think Sfoskett should be credited, not blamed, with furthering the development of the system we have now. Having these lists and their tables out there has supported numerous wikipedians in finding their way to add photos and to create articles about individual properties and districts.
And by the way, with breakouts of county and city-specific articles out of too-large state lists, there are now hundreds of such articles, about 30 in Wisconsin and 70 in New York State alone. So there is more "work" involved than previously estimated. But it would be bizarre to think that wp:NRHP editors would avoid doing anything for reason that it involves a lot of work. That is definitely not the case! doncram (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I was fine with the existing system. If a change is made, the one that seems best is "Properties on the National Register of Historic Places in... " Cbl62 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Or if we need to start with the word "list," then "List of Properties on the National Register of Historic Places in..."Cbl62 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I like these as well. I think districts, boats, buildings, and parcels of land can all be "properties."--Appraiser (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Can we now please get this change started? Motorrad-67 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
In general, I like "Properties on the National Register of Historic Places in... " However, as was pointed out earlier, "Properties on the National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin" could be misinterpreted to refer to properties on the nonexistent "National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin." That could be avoided by rearranging the word order to "Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places." --Orlady (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
And then, if it is felt that we should begin with "List of" we end up with "List of Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places", which while undoubtedly "correct" is long and awkward. I don't think it's a matter of any of us not "liking" the official terminology so much as there not being any clear official terminology for a list that's a subset of the National Register of Historic Places. During the first round of this debate, didn't someone say they were going to contact the NPS? If so, I'd like to know if/how they replied. Lvklock (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I can live without the "list of". I'll second User:Orlady's latest suggestion: Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places.--Appraiser (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
These directions seem okay to me, although "properties" should be down-cased if it is not the first word. So, either "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places", or "Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places". I somewhat prefer "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places". I don't think that is awkward, and i like it to be identified that this article is a List, it is not just a broad discussion about NRHPs in Wisconsin.
I am sorta troubled by using properties to cover districts, but not too badly. I think "properties" can easily include ships and other "structures", "objects" like memorial monuments, "sites", and "buildings" because those can be sold. As previously discussed, it's a stretch to use "properties" to cover "districts" which are collections of individual legal parcels owned by many different parties. For list-articles, though, I am okay with districts not being included in the title. In the intro text of the list-articles, though, I would want to see upfront clarification that districts are meant to be included, as done by the South Carolina DAH in their intro which was previously discussed, acknowledging that the title imperfectly describes the contents of the list. doncram (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I can happily support "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places." Doncram's reasons for including the "List of" wording make sense to me. List article intros could quote or paraphrase an official NRHP definition of "properties", which include "districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture."[2] --Orlady (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Although I still don't completely grasp the objection to the current phrase (and am smarting some from the implication that I'm "intellectually sloppy" and lazy), I have no objection to "Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" (with or without "List of" on the front end). --Sanfranman59 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, "Properties on the National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin. Either one is fine. All I really care about is getting the official terminology, National Register of Historic Places, into the article names, regardless of what words come before or after that. Motorrad-67 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll go along with "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places." It may be wordy but it's grammatical and accurate. (IMHO, "in Wisconsin" belongs after properties, not after Places.) We've wasted enough time and energy on this. It's time to reach consensus and get 'er done. clariosophic (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
... and the titles will be even longer for the county- and city/town-specific lists ... "List of properties in Fond Du Lac County, Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" --Sanfranman59 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that the discussion has turned in the right direction towards consensus. I am fine with either the "Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" or adding the "List of" prefix. By the way, the Wisconsin county is Fond du Lac with the lower case "du". The wording may be more difficult, but it's at least consistent with the official source. It's great to have these lists with a spot open for photographs so photographers know what needs to be taken. I know I've taken dozens of pictures of Wisconsin properties and I'm planning to take some more tomorrow! Royalbroil 03:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My proposal

Having come late to this discussion, and reading over again what the NPS said to me in email below, I really think "National Register of Historic Places listings in ..." would be the best overall to use:

  • The word "list" is in there, making it obvious to any reader that it's a list article.
  • The full term "National Register of Historic Places" is as well.
  • By avoiding the beginning "List of ..." it isn't constrained into awkward phrasing afterwards.
  • "Listings" rather than "properties" seems to comport with NPS's desire that people not think the federal government owns these places. It also seems like a more intuitive way to account for districts, since "properties" in this context is jargon that doesn't quite mean in the real world what it means in the Register.
  • Categories and lists could take the same name, solving a problem that (to me) the other solutions never did.
  • It's shorter and more elegant overall than any "List of ..." construction could be.

So, the only remaining issue would be what to rename the topical categories (stuff like "X-related Registered Historic Places") I would propose that these could easily become: "X-related National Register of Historic Places listings").

Any thoughts here? Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Royalbroil 03:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I like it best...it's a little less wordy, and it makes the main focus of the title the National Register instead of the place. Lvklock (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
See National Register of Historic Places listings in Albany County, New York for a test of how this looks. Seems okay to me. Other comments on the format/presentation/intro of that article, the first alphabetically in New York State, would be welcomed. doncram (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
As a general matter of group process, I'm still a little wary of this proposal, as in other settings I have seen groups stampeded to accept the last new proposal in cases when it wasn't the best, but the last one in just avoided the scrutiny applied to previous ones. This proposal fails to meet Appraiser's concern for avoiding "Places listings". How does it work for the related titles and categories. Does it go with:
  • Category and list title:"Transportation-related National Register of Historic Places listings in New York"?
  • Category and list title:"Bridges and tunnels on the National Register of Historic Places in New York" or "Bridge and tunnel listings on the National Register of Historic Places in New York"?
  • other titles and category names needed? doncram (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I looked at Don's link to the modified Albany County article, and I think it looks fine. Cbl62 (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have gotten split, and I think I wasn't very clear when I flip flopped. There is discussion both above and below the What the NPS Said section. My final decision is that I prefer "National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin" I did not like "NRHP properties", but the listings doesn't bother me, and it is both more concise than "Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" and puts the main focus earlier in the name. If more people prefer the latter, I can live with it. Lvklock (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What the NPS said

Near the end of the previous discussion, I mentioned that I had emailed the NR info people. I heard back from them in late August but was traveling and not really in the mood to have to devote limited time to a discussion that, at that time, was petering out as Don noted.

In light of this discussion I have been asked to post what I got. It doesn't really provide any clear direction,(another reason I didn't post it), but maybe it can guide our thinking further:

Usually we state a site is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (e.g. the Winchester Mystrey House in San Jose, California, listed in the National Register of Historic Places, was built by the widow of the owner of the Winchester Rifle Company.). You also come across" National Register Properties", but this can be somewhat misleading, since some people assume the National Register owns or regulates these properties. This is a common error, as well as the laws the federal government has regulating the listed sites, which are often assumed to be strong. Actually, they are stronger on the local level (State, County or City) in general.

On our webpage we do include the phrase "National Register properties."

You can use "Listings in the National Register include..." (e.g. Listings in the National Register include many sites associated with the history of air flight in the United States). Alternatively, "Listed Places" or "Historic places listed in the National Register..."

My reading would be that some derivative of "list" is the place to start. But if anyone can make a stronger argument for, say, "properties" based on this, I'm open to hearing it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel, for asking the question and sharing the answer. That's a typical government answer for you. I'm more familiar with HUD publications, but apparently the NPS went to the same non-answer school as HUD! Anyway, though the current names don't bother me, I guess I see the value of having the entire "National Register of Historic Places" in the title as Motorrad wants and I see the value of explicitly stating it's a list. I still don't particularly like making things wordier, but I'll go along with "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places." Lvklock (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I like Daniel's suggestion above the best. Lvklock (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"Properties" works for me. But, all I really care about is getting the official terminology, National Register of Historic Places, into the article names, regardless of what words come before or after that. I also would like to see something along this line started now. Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we have enough consensus for this: List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places to go ahead with it. I count favorable response to this from

  1. Appraiser
  2. Lvklock
  3. Motorrad
  4. Royalbroil
  5. clariosophic
  6. Sanfranman59
  7. Orlady

Although it's not 100% consensus, I think it has the most support. Is there anyone who can't live with this?--Appraiser (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Whew! Can we now proceed to make this change in articles?????????
Impatient? Who? Me? Motorrad-67 (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have gotten split, and I think I wasn't very clear when I flip flopped. There is discussion both above and below the What the NPS Said section. My final decision is that I prefer "National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin" I did not like "NRHP properties", but the listings doesn't bother me, and it is both more concise than "Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" and puts the main focus earlier in the name. If more people prefer the latter, I can live with it. Lvklock (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This is getting confusing having discussions taking place in more than one place under the main heading. I suggest that new messages be added to the bottom (i.e. here). I also prefer the shorter "National Register of Historic Places listing in Wisconsin", but won't object to "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" (nor would I object to just leaving things as they are, but that appears to be a dead horse at this point). --Sanfranman59 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what Sanfranman59 said. Cbl62 (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Your points are noted, but the discussion is already moved on to the next section below. doncram (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to remerge discussion

How about using List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places for the list title, and National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin for the corresponding category? I somewhat prefer that, as the latter seems to be the best category name available and this serves to identify the list as a list. Call this combo A.
Combo B is list title same as category title: National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin. doncram (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Combo A works for me. --Orlady (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I prefer Combo B, but don't object to A. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I prefer Combo B, but don't object to A. (Is there an echo in here ;) ) Lvklock (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose Combo C: List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places for the list title, and Category:Properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places for the category. This avoids the awkward grammatical structure of Places listings. clariosophic (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I still like National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin. But I won't quibble. Let's just do something to remedy the situation! Motorrad-67 (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to also think of those that stumble upon Wikipedia for the first time and have no idea what a "National Register of Historic Places" is. I like the Combo C; it's wordy, but helpful. Anyway, regardless, I'll go along with the consensus. Pick something. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I am with you. Pick something! Motorrad-67 (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Drumroll... Let me try to state a compromise, possible consensus: The compromise and consensus decision is the above-discussed Option A: List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places for the list title, and National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin for the category title. This reflects both of the current semi-consensus views. Also, and relatedly, it accomodates extensions like category "X-related National Register of Historic Places listings", and it leaves open either type of title for any new, narrowly specialized lists of X-related NRHP properties and districts. Option B is presumably what Daniel Case (with support of Lvklock and Sanfranman59 and Cbl62) prefers and has the advantage of avoiding awkwardness about properties vs. districts, and that is used in the option A category names, which Daniel hopefully agrees is the most important. Option C is what Appraiser and Clariosophic prefer and has the advantage of avoiding awkwardness of "Places listings", and that is used in Option A list titles, which they hopefully agree is the most important. And Option A is what Orlady and I prefer. Option A is also entirely consistent with Appraiser's assertion of the consensus, listing 7 supporters, which focused on the list title only. Finally, Motorrad should be thrilled, because it is a decision, any decision. :) That's it, my stab at stating consensus, which i believe is the best compromise, in part because it is a compromise and gives something for everyone participating at least in the latest rounds of this discussion. Of course i have no more standing than anyone else to state this, so feel free to rip this apart or to state a different summary. doncram (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
OK with me. Lvklock (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
See List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places and List of properties in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places, for how this looks. doncram (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I did this one: List of properties in Dane County, Wisconsin, on the National Register of Historic Places. Remember to put the comma after the state's name. I didn't do that at first and had to fix it. Also, there is "registered historic places" language at the start of the article that needs to be fixed. Motorrad-67 (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, looking at these, and I guess i agree that the extra comma is needed, I am more inclined to change my mind --oh no!-- and prefer B. As has been noted, it is shorter and avoids properties vs. districts. I didn't appreciate before that for the county ones, it requires only one comma, not two: National Register of Historic Places listings in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. I hate to flip flop after trying to state a consensus/compromise; would someone else like to try? doncram (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I still prefer National Register of Historic Places in Dane County, Wisconsin, but go along with others just to get some sort of fix in place. Motorrad-67 (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
"National Register of Historic Places listings in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin" makes sense to me -- it avoids the extra comma and the meaning is pretty darn clear. --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
(Eleven colons! Is that a record?) Good, Orlady. Let's do it! Motorrad-67 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As Don has properly read me, I prefer B. Per Motorrad, we MUST do whatever the NPS says we should do, and their email makes it very clear that they prefer not using the word "properties" if they don't have to. So we don't have to either. It would hardly be the first instance of a list and category sharing a name. Daniel Case (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I noted my earlier feelings above, but they're not particularly strong. Other than the fact that I have to say, we don't have to do anything the NPS says. Our article titles should be based on reliable, published sources, and whatever the most common way these things are referred to in those sources. Email from the NPS is original research pretty much to the letter. That said, I don't think this matters a whole heck of a lot. --IvoShandor (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's true that while we don't have to do it directly because the NPS says so, we have to do it because our naming conventions tell us to avoid neologisms, and "Registered Historic Places", as useful as it is, is currently a neologism phrase that the NPS prefers not to use. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with "nationally-registered historic places". It's a phrase with a clear meaning, since there's (I believe) only one national agency that registers historic places. --NE2 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So that is somehow not awkward English, yet the two-syllable "duplex" is? I really wonder why I have ever defended you in RFCs sometimes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. Here's the count I come up with.
Option A - 1 Orlady
Option B - 7 Cbl62, Daniel Case, doncram, lvklock, Motorrad-67, Royalbroil, Sanfranman59
Option C - 3 Appraiser, clariosophic, Einbierbitte
No change - 1 IvoShandor
"nationally-registered historic places" - 1 NE2
I think that leaves us with National Register of Historic Places listings in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin for list titles and categories. Lvklock (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I still believe we could have different naming conventions for the (1) state lists and (2) county and city lists. "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" is excellent for the state lists, and the Fond du Lac version can be used at the city and county level, but "listings" is OK for all versions. --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to chime in late on this, but having just come across this discussion, I feel obliged to point out that National Register of Historic Places listings... is redundant-- a "Register" is a "list" or "listing". So I would leave "listings" out, leaving National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin, short and sweet, as proposed by Motorrad-67, above. It was objected that readers who didn't know what the NRHP was would be confused, but then all of the proposed names would share that difficulty; article titles can't explain the subject-- that's what the article is for.
And "List of properties in Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places" is doubly redundant: list/register and properties/places. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you on the second point, but I think you are being too inflexible on the first. "National Register of Historic Places" by itself can only, IMO, refer to the entire list/register; "listings" makes it clear that it's partitioned locally by city, county or whatever. It would be like saying "Federal Bureau of Investigation in Buffalo, New York", instead of what we have, which is FBI Buffalo Field Office. And most people don't draw the connection between "list" and "register" right away, given that in the former instance that's the predominant of a couple of meanings, whereas in the latter it's one of several, and not the one that comes first to everyone's mind (You don't make a shopping register, do you?)

Look, we have to think of whatever we come up with, at least for categories, passing a CfD, which is the next step. The regulars there will evaluate a proposed renaming from the standpoint of the entire community and existing Wikipedia policy, rather than just this project. They may well insist on using some noun and keeping "National Register of Historic Places" as an adjectivally-used noun phrase. I would hate for us to get sent back to the drawing board without considering how it will be evaluated at CfD. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see the point of "listing". I think I'd prefer "entries in X" to "listings in X", but I could live with either. BTW, "properties" has an additional problem in that it isn't a good fit for district entries.-- Mwanner | Talk 17:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes! — National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin works just fine, as does National Register of Historic Places in Dane County, Wisconsin. As you said, "short and sweet." Definitely my personal preference. But, as I have said repeatedly, I am flexible and just hoping for a broadly acceptable "fix." Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it's time to declare consensus and push forward with names in the form National Register of Historic Places listings in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin (including National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin). This isn't everyone's first choice, but I believe that everyone who has commented here is OK with it. --Orlady (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Lvklock (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Ditto Einbierbitte (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Disagree I think following "Places" with listings sounds terrible. List of National Register of Historic Places in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin solves that problem, conveying the same information using exactly one fewer character. I can't relate to editors prefering the awkward wording.--Appraiser (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think several of us would object strenuously to that choice (and, in fact, have already done so, in one form or another). The problem is that "National Register of Historic Places" is a singular noun referring to a list. It does not refer to the individual items on the list, but rather to the whole list. As a result "List of National Register of Historic Places" parses to "List of list." --Orlady (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
As opposed to you suggestion which parses to "list listings". That would bring me back to the earlier suggestion that received quite a bit of support, List of properties in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin on the National Register of Historic Places.--Appraiser (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
"Items on the National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin",..alternatively, "National Register of Historic Places inventory items in Wisconsin" ..this seems to be consistent with the NRHP using the terminology of calling it an "Inventory Nomination Form". ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I could be on board with either of these too.--Appraiser (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Support this wording as the best possible compromise. Let's take it to CfD now. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Disagree - I've been following this thread for the most part. I gave myself time to get used to the "listings" and it still catches my eye in a bad way. I actually prefer what I'd call D, from (User:Motorrad-67) eg: National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin and National Register of Historic Places in Dane County, Wisconsin dm (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"And the beat goes on" — Motorrad-67 (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. List of entries on the register of the National Register of Historic Places nominated and then registered and entered on the register's listings in Fond du Lac County, State of Wisconsin, U. S. A.
Sorry. I couldn't resist. — Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Listings", pro and con

"Listing" is not preferable. The article subjects themselves aren't listings but there are listings associated with them. Listings are "writings"....see this definition; either #2 or #4 would be plausible for our context. People also have listings associated with them..like an entry in a phonebook, but I can't imagine that any kind of "listing" would be used in a category about people who are article subjects. ("Hall of Fame Listing"?) A property listing is the actual writing entry on the list and not the item itself. Listing is also a short form for the more proper "property listing". ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Your last sentence negated your entire argument. This is a point of extreme semanticism that will be lost on 99.9% of readers. The fact is that a "register" is, as noted above, a list (a la the Social Register) and it's a fitting and proper term. We cannot use "property", since as noted it's a rather poor term to apply to historic districts, which are often collections of properties. The NPS's own page uses "list", "listing", "listed". Including this: "Included among the over 80,000 listings that make up the National Register are ...". I think if it's good enough for them it's good enough for us (the many mistaken addresses and typoes in the database notwithstanding, of course). Daniel Case (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood me and I can see where I wasn't clear. "Listed" is preferable to "Listing"..and it is more noticeable than you think...this is from the return correspondence you received above..."Alternatively, 'Listed Places' or 'Historic places listed in the National Register...'" I'm not suggesting the precise phrase here but that this is a better grammar form (using "Listed" rather than "Listing" in whatever combination would be preferable) That is what I'm saying. If you re-read my comments above, you will see that I'm not contradicting myself. The same grammar problem may be seen in this example ..."Entry in the NRHP..." or "Entered in the NRHP". An Entry is a piece of writing, the subject of an article is not itself an entry but it is entered on the register. I tried to add to my comments earlier and WP gave me a proxy error followed by a "503 forbidden" and I lost those comments..then had to leave and just getting back to addressing this. My apologies for not being clear. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The fact that this is part of the NRHP name notwithstanding, "listed places" is not good terminology for these titles because many of the entities on the NRHP are not places (for example, trains and ships). --Orlady (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
"Listed Places" would be as neologistic as the term we're trying to replace, plus within the context of Wikipedia it creates confusion with listed buildings in Great Britain. And within the context of a list article, I don't see a problem with using "listing", because after all it is a list that would give a property/district's name, photo, ID number, and a short statement of significance. The actual article linked then describes the property in more detail, and does not refer to it as a "listing".

Look, it's not our fault that the NPS never considered the idea of someone outside of themselves compiling this and indexing it in ways they never have to, much less having to do so in an international context. "Listings" is the best we can come up with ... I would prefer not to break up the name of the Register in titles because that might create confusion (there's more than enough mangling of its name out there), especially if there's some other National Register in the U.S. or elsewhere out there. (Actually, there is. And if you don't think we don't have trees on the NRHP, think again. And there's private things like this)

"Listings" in this sense seems to be how the state of Ohio does it "Search this database of all Ohio listings in the National Register of Historic Places" (And here's Maryland not quite being sure of this ... note difference between what it says in the title bar and what it says on the actual page). Daniel Case (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone like entries as a substitute for listings? Properties (of all kinds) are entered on the register. -- Mwanner | Talk 11:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we discussed that a long time ago and nobody particularly liked it. It doesn't seem to be in use anywhere. Daniel Case (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I like "entries" o.k., on a par with all the other choices that have been presented. However, nothing I have seen yet is superior to National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin. But I have thrown in the towel on this matter and acquiesce to what is nominally termed the "consensus." — Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's try punctuation:

OK, folks who don't like National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin object that a reader could think that it was an entity in itself. How about National Register of Historic Places: Wisconsin? Those who don't like National Register of Historic Places listings in Wisconsin object to the "Places listings" part. How about National Register of Historic Places: listings in Wisconsin? An emdash could substitute for the colon (and I still prefer "entries" to "listings", but let it pass). -- Mwanner | Talk 11:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the first one you've stated could be a good fit..⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
"National Register of Historic Places — Wisconsin"       That lights my fire!
Also, "National Register of Historic Places — Dane County, Wisconsin" — Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not

See, first, this, first of all, and I also think WP:MOSDASH rather suggests against it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your first cite refers to not using non-alpha characters for emphasis so it doesn't apply here since that isn't how the dash is used and the second cite suggests that we use an En dash (–) as opposed to a literal "-"...but seems to indicate that it is perfectly alright to do what has been suggested.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I doubt this sort of title would pass at FLC. Every other list title somehow manages to do it without using punctuation marks to do what a preposition should. And I feel this has the same underlying issue that "NRHP in PLACE" does: it's like saying "Federal Bureau of Investigation — Buffalo, New York" instead of "FBI Buffalo Field Office".

Basically, it's too subtle for an effectively communicative title. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

How about "Entries"?

I've mostly tried to avoid this conversation, and can't remember if this suggestion has been put forward yet or not, but how about Entries in Washington on the National Register of Historic Places? It gets rid of the "properties" issues, is proper English, has no punctuation, and doesn't look like the whole thing is a proper noun. Murderbike (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Then that would be Entries in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, on the National Register of Historic Places, etc. for county and city listings. That looks pretty good, offhand, to me. Again I would want to be careful about leaping to a new option which hasn't stood up to the scrutiny the other proposals have undergone. doncram (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I like this.--Appraiser (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I like it, too. It is clear and as concise as we can get it. I say, "Get'r done" 4.130.152.19 (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I probably supported "entries" at one time or another, but now I find it unclear. In this context, I think "entries" could be misunderstood as referring either to (1) the physical act of entering a building or place or (2) the entryway or door to a building or place. --Orlady (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this is definitely why I tried to stay out of this conversation, but by this logic, "Listings" could be problematic because someone might think that it refers to ships listing to one side or the other. Can we assume that our readers are total morons? Murderbike (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
What the hell was wrong with listings? In looking through the state SHPO websites, it seems to be the most common term, it's analogous to its use by real estate agents, and we've already come to a consensus on it.
And there's the Google results:
Hmm, yes, there was a consensus, except not everyone endorsed that consensus. And for the record, I was against it, before I was for it, before i was against it, or the other way around. Semi-seriously, how about NRHP listings in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin? Yes it is an acronym, but there are 9,000 google hits, and climbing, on "NRHP listings". It's short. It uses "listings", which some like. It avoids "Places listings", which others want. How much grief would we adopted that? doncram (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
* I'm ok with that, it avoids the dreaded "places listings" dm (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Please let's not use that acronym. 9,000 Ghits hardly indicates the kind of universal recognizability that an acronym should have to be used in a page title. Compare the 2,060,000 Ghits for "NASA images" -- that's the kind of recognizability you want to see for an acronym that is used in a page name. --Orlady (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
“Hmm, yes, there was a consensus, except not everyone endorsed that consensus.”
If “everyone” is the standard, there will never be “consensus.” — Motorrad-67 (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If "consensus" was equivalent to "universal agreement", we wouldn't have AfD or DRV, only speedies. Can we initiate a mass move to "National Register of Historic Places listings in Podunk County, Foo" now? Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Daniel. I have been doing this slowly as time and motivation permits. Have changed Wisconsin and