This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Is the dynamic list tag appropiate for this list? Although the number is very large, there is a finite number of NRHP sites, which is easily accessed. The list grows every week, but not at an unmaintainable rate. I've always thought that the dynamic list tag were for lists that, because of their open ended nature, could not be expected to be completed.
Dsmdgold01:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)reply
I agree SO MUCH that I just took the NRIS dump and converted it to Wiki and replaced this whole list. There are a LOT of entries on the list, but they're all (by definition) significant and could perhaps one day have entries here. So now they all at least have redlinks. One thing I did not (yet) do was reconcile the old list with these new "official" names. So if you have a moment, please peruse
this old list and make sure the links are correct for the new ones. I think it would be prudent to maintain the new names in the lists, and just pipe-trick the relevant articles. Also, the counties and such need proofreading... --
SFoskett19:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)reply
The NRIS and the NRHP Weekly Updates have misspellings - just be aware (For example, the NRHP misspelled "Altadena" as Altedena). Also, I have caught quite a few Red Links here (and in other states) that do have articles, however they don't use the "official" NRHP names. Some of the Blue Links here actually go to other articles. Be aware, too, that many properties use the same name, thus there are many "Hermitages" or "Standard Oil Buildings."
Homograph02:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Do not merge. National Historic Landmarks are a partial subset of the National Register, true. But they are more distinctive, and deserving of separate recognition, imho. --
Ebyabe20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Do not merge. The list of National Historic Landmarks is much smaller than the National Register list, often making it easier to find a particular landmark than it would be if they were only available scattered through the larger state registration lists. In fact, the national landmarks list is smaller than the
List of Registered Historic Places in California alone, which excludes several of the state's largest counties.
Whyaduck22:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Do not merge. There are legitimate encyclopedic reasons to distinguish between National Historic Landmarks and the National Register of Historic Places. But because the total number of NHLs is vastly smaller than the NRHP, they would get completely lost mixed in among NRHP entries - even with distinguishing formatting (like asterisks or italics). It would be nearly impossible to get a good view of the NHLs by viewing the many NRHP lists. -
Ipoellet04:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral: National Historic Landmarks are really little more than the honor roll of the National Register of Historic Places. Most of the federal legislation doesn't really distinguish between the two when talking about incentives and preservation. The noted exception are certain grants. But I don't think the assertion that they are extremely different holds up very well, especially in view of government regulation toward the two entities. Any merger here would have to reflect the minor difference by including the list of landmarks in its own section, because they are a subset of the National Register and it would be impossible to get a view of them if included with the Registered Historic Places, sheer volume dictates this, 87,000 Registered Historic Places vs. around 2500 National Historic Landmarks. Just my opinion based upon the volumes I have read researching for the major expansion that I undertook at
National Register of Historic Places. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
IvoShandor (
talk •
contribs)
16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC).reply
Possibly not much regulatory distinction, but I'd say the major distinction is in relative notability. In particular, the criterion for inclusion on the NRHP is national, state, or local significance. By contrast the NHL criterion is national significance only. -
Ipoellet13:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
So on the map, there's links for lists that are either counties, or cities. But there's one for "Seattle County", which doesn't exist, and should point to the King County list. But I can find where it is in the code. Is it hidden? Is it somewhere else? What gives?
Murderbike (
talk)
06:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Why are we bothering using all this time and energy to copy something the US National Parks Service does anyway? In my opinion all of WP's many sites about
heritage registers should simply link to them rather than duplicate them. --
Kevlar (
talk •
contribs)
20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
We are providing a far superior database with respect to these aspects:
Organization
Detail
timeliness (current common name, current use, endangerment, and condition)
You misunderstand. I support the creation of great articles about each of the places in question. I reject the idea that we need to duplicate register itself by creating and maintaining dozens of list articles, which mearly duplicate the work the US government pays beaurcrats to do. --
Kevlar (
talk •
contribs)
01:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I suggest this be renamed from "List of National Register of Historic Places entries" to "United States National Register of Historic Places listings".
This would be compatible with the near-consensus decision to rename state and county lists to "National Register of Historic Places listings in Countyname, Statename" format, that several are implementing. I add the United States to the front, to avoid USA-centrism. This is consistent with other top-level lists, like
List of areas in the United States National Park System, above the lower-level
List of National Park System areas in Maryland.
If there are no comments, i'll make the move in a couple days time. But if there are other ideas, i'd rather sort it out here.
doncram (
talk)
20:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)reply
After all the discussion of names that occurred over on the Wikiproject talk page, I overlooked this proposal. Seeing that no one else commented here to say "yay" or "nay", I suspect I'm not the only one who failed to notice this proposal. Frankly, I think the name change was unnecessary. Unlike "National Park System", the name National Register of Historic Places" is unique to the United States and does not require disambiguation. (This was discussed in July-August 2008 at
Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals.) I'm not convinced that "List of National Register of Historic Places entries" was the single best name for this article, but the new name is not an improvement. --
Orlady (
talk)
16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Some change was necessary, and i think the current name is better, although it might be improved. The previous name "List of National Register of Historic Places entries" parses to "List of list entries". It begged the question, what's the difference between the Register, a list itself, and a list of its entries? Yes, the USA-centric issue came up in that prior discussion, but it was not resolved. Appraiser and I had apparently differing opinions than Orlady and some others.
How about "National Register of Historic Places listings in the United States"? That is in parallel with the state and county list names. That avoids the USA-centric issue. And it is clear. Hmm, but would it tend to exclude the American Legation and other listings outside the U.S. proper?
doncram (
talk)
21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)reply
implement all the renames in one step here please
Can we please just implement all the state renames in one step here, please? I tried that but was reverted. Yes, implementing all the changes here first does create a bunch of temporary red-links. Which is great, it highlights that each of those need to be fixed. That would be how i would do it, anyhow. This is not really worth discussing. There are a certain amount of state page renames to be done, and there's this one page which needs to be updated for all of them. It can't matter that much in which order that is done. And it doesn't matter to me, i don't mind about being reverted. But I just am getting irritated with all these one-state-at-a-time edits showing up on my watchlist. :( Someone please finish them all! Just do it.
doncram (
talk)
21:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Note: On that page link that Motorrad-67 provide, the California and District of Columbia links are red because the wrong names were used for the articles. Both articles have been renamed. --
Orlady (
talk) 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Additionally, the links for Wake and Midway are red because there are (apparently) no NRHP list articles for these locations. --
Orlady (
talk)
16:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Doncram, what you did needs to be done, but your action was premature. What you did was rename all the links in the US-level article. Unfortunately, since many of the state articles had not yet been renamed, that had the effect of converting a lot of blue links to redlinks. The articles need to be renamed before we rename the links that point to them.
I believe that all of the state articles have now been renamed. (I did a bunch the other day, but I did not do any territories.) There's a problem, though, in that some of what appear to be state articles are actually redirects to an article about one part of the state. (I was bewildered when I clicked on the Rhode Island link and found myself looking at the list for one county in Rhode Island.) Simply changing the names of these redirects would create a double redirection situation that would be automatically resolved by changing many links to point to "Texas A" (or something similar). IMHO, rather than revising the US list page to point to "Texas A" instead of "Texas", these redirects need to be edited to become proper index articles for the whole state. I have done this for three states (including Rhode Island), but several others remain to be done. --
Orlady (
talk)
14:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Progress report: All state and territory renames are now done except for Georgia, Missouri, and Texas, which still have redirects pointing to articles about part of the state. --
Orlady (
talk)
16:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)reply
All state-level list article names are updated; all states now have an index article (no more redirects to county articles); and this article now points to the new names. --
Orlady (
talk)
01:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)reply
NRHPs overseas
It's a misstatement to characterize all of the overseas NRHP sites as being in territories of the U.S., except for the American Legation. Specifically, NRHPs in the Marshall Islands and in the Federated States of Micronesia are not in territories of the US. The
corresponding wikipedia presentation for NHLs is to list separately those in U.S. commonwealths and territories, those in associated states, and those in foreign states. In the last category of NHLs there's just one member, the
American Legation in Tangiers, which is the only NHL and may be the only NRHP in a foreign state.
About
Wake Island, by the way, there is an NHL "Wake Island" that is covered in the wikipedia article on Wake Island as a whole. However, the NRHP nomination document describes that the recommended NHL area, 2600 acres, was meant to include all of Beale Island and some areas of Wake Island but exclude other areas of Wake Island and to exclude certain new causeways. There needs to be a new separate article describing the Wake Island NHL, i think.
doncram (
talk)
21:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I just started a new table to provide more information, by state and territory, about the NRHPs in each state. Totals of NRHPs is known for only 4 states so far. The table is to be expanded to cover all states, obviously. This table then provides some new information that is not covered in a mere category of all the state NRHP list-articles.
Also, I'd like to reduce the size of, and move to the right, the map of the U.S. Any formatting help to do that would be appreciated.
doncram (
talk)
23:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)reply
For the table of states with count of each state's entries, how are we going to handle duplicate entries between two states? (E.G.
Eads Bridge between Illinois and Missouri, etc.)--
Marcbela (
talk)
22:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Good to start worrying about this. I just added a starter list in a footnote to the duplicates subtraction row in the tally table, listing out Eads Bridge and 17 other across-state duplicates identified already in
List of NHLs by state. For NHLs, the National Register provides an asserted total of sites in each state, so having a separate reconciling column seems helpful. Here, I suggest just building one big footnote list, expanding on the starter footnote. It might always be a small number, within the approximate error range we will always have on the accuracy of the nation-wide total, which will never be exact. But it is worth trying to quantify the duplicates, however few they are, at least to establish there is not too much duplication.
doncram (
talk)
23:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
That will be helpful. There are also several Locks and Canals across the Mississippi River that I have come across so far. (Been working on Ill. lately). - Will need a similar footnote in my state lists for cross county entries.--
Marcbela (
talk)
01:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Hmm, since the number will grow, it may be best to include a footnote in each state's separate list-article, about the sites that overlap from that state into other states, in addition to footnoting the duplicates between counties within the state. That would be more reviewable in each state article, than a site-name-alphabetized list merging all that info, without any separate source, in the nation-wide list-article. I dunno. There are several Washington DC nrhps for parkways and waterworks that overlap into MD and VA, perhaps you noted that discussion at Talk page of
List of RHPs in DC.
doncram (
talk)
02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)reply
There are also several bridges over the Missouri River between Nebraska and either Iowa or Missouri that I have found. --
Marcbela (
talk)
16:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)reply
How many NRHP listings are there? >80,000 or not?
The intro needs a citation for how many NRHP listings there are. Someone helpfully added a reference to
NRIS general search screen, but i just removed that as I do not see how to get it to report how many NRHP listings there are.
I know it is possible to use the NRIS interface to run reports on the NRHP listings in any one state, which comes out in sets of 10 listings per page. You can page through and count up how many pages there are. I actually used that method to support an assertion in an article up for DYK once or twice. But besides it being impractical to count through all 8,000 or so pages to cover all the U.S., that method also probably under or overcounts. One issue is that it would include all separate listings for boundary increases and decreases which get a separate NRIS identification number, although only one per property should count in a list of how many properties are listed. Also, I don't know if it accounts properly for delistings of properties, of which Elkman reports there are about 1,500.
One can download the complete database in Microsoft Access format; as of its publication date (which I don't remember), there were 84,348 listings, including boundary increases. This database, apparently unlike what Elkman has, doesn't include any delistings or other sites not currently listed.
Nyttend (
talk)
13:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Coincidentally, I just this evening tallied 83,966 from the list tables (almost) done for all! That makes sense, as it doen't count boundary increases.
Lvklock (
talk)
05:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Neat. Note that the NRIS database in either the version downloaded by Elkman and by NRHP.COM, or in any other version, is different than the list we now have out in wikipedia. In numerous isolated cases, and in a bunch in Oregon and in Puerto Rico where state-specific sources are available and have been cross-checked, NRIS errors of omission and of erroneous inclusions have been identified. These errors are in terms of representing what is actually listed in the National Register (so not addressing other situations where a property should be delisted because it was demolished, but where it is a fact that the property is still NRHP-listed). I now trust the wikipedia 83,966 number more than any other number, although there will be revisions up and down in the wikipedia number too.
doncram (
talk)
16:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Duplicate listings across state lines
The following sites were listed as duplicates before I did a systematic and comprehensive check for duplicate listings using the latest raw database available from the NPS website. All are only included in one of our tables, so they are not currently duplicated in the tallies.
I can't find either Lock and Dam No. 23 in the NRIS database, so I'm not sure that it is even listed. Siege and Battle of Corinth Sites are listed as an NHL in both MS and TN, but the NRIS does not have this listing in Tennessee. If someone feels strongly that they should be added to other lists, feel free to do so and then put them back in the list of duplicates on this page.
--
sanfranman59 (
talk)
00:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Discrepancy
I have just finished updating the NRHP and NHL listings for the move of
United States lightship Nantucket (LV-112) from Oyster Bay, NY to Boston.
The numbers should be simple, reduce the counts in
and Massachusetts on this list. with no change in the grand total.
Unfortunately, the New York total on this list was already one less than the old total on
National Register of Historic Places listings in New York -- that is, the old total there was 5,194 and the total shown here, before my change, was 5,193.
I ran the total in New York, county by county and the new total shown there, 5,193, is correct, so I did not change it here.
So, I have increased the Massachusetts total here by one, but have not changed the New York total shown here. That means that the grand total shown here is too high by one (the detail, which I checked, shows 84,781 less 94 duplicates = 84,687). I did not change that because I am reluctant to fiddle at that scale.
An image used in this article,
File:Blank US Map.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
I have noticed that a great many listed places have no article and even more have no photo. Seems to me, we ought to have a map for every list, which means coordinates in the list entries. Also, especially when there is no article, a Wikidata link, since a WD item can supply much information including a finder for relevant external databases, references, and other material that can one day help an article writer and meanwhile help a photographer and various kinds of researcher. Ought this page suggest including those two bits of information in the lists?
Jim.henderson (
talk)
16:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply