Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

various changes

I reverted various changes which editor Nyttend recently implemented. Another editor had already reverted some; i went back further. Please discuss here. I note that at least 2 of Nyttend's changes are of type recently discussed in other NRHP list-articles and/or at wt:NRHP, and where consensus is clearly against or generally seems to be against Nyttend's choices here. In the reversion, other good changes are lost by my reversion; I would like to, and will, restore those if/when discussion on apparently contentious changes is resolved here. --doncram (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your action seems heavy-handed to me. You reverted the formatting of state highway names, contrary to the consensus at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways). Why delay restoration of the good changes? In the meantime, how am I to infer which changes you wish to discuss? --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes, I can see another editor not aware of many previous discussions would see my edit as heavy-handed. I am happy to respond to real conversation here and to sort out and fix this article ASAP. For bigger context, this relates to many edits by Nyttend to NRHP list-articles, and to many discussions specifically about NRHP list-article formatting between me and him and also at general places for discussion, such as at wt:NRHP. Nyttend is a great editor with whom i have worked mostly productively, but we seem to be having a communications impasse or something now. I am cumulatively frustrated at trying to develop proper consensus and good decisions on numerous matters about NRHP list-articles, and finding the Nyttend's participation in that very limited, and finding that Nyttend is in fact proceeding with edits clearly contrary to consensus established clearly on some points, and contrary to my sense of where other points need to be resolved. In other articles, such as National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven, Connecticut, Nyttend has proceeded by mixing in good changes and contested changes and seemed to "win" that way. Eventually it seems best to just revert all and call for discussion. Another editor Ipoellet has recently undertaken to have similar discussions about multiple changes in several Oregon NRHP list articles, including discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington County, Oregon. I dunno if this will work out well, but i simply reverted all of Nyttend's edits today to 3 NRHP list-articles and called for specific discussion at each Talk page. See also Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Mendocino County, California#various changes and see also Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Santa Cruz County, California#various changes. So, in summary, there's a fairly consistent refusal to have central discussion; hence getting heavy-handed treatment at a random list-article like here.
Do let's discuss which changes should be restored vs. not restored. For one item, the formatting of ship names to use ALL CAPS is against wikipedia policy in several places, and against recent consensus, by my read, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#ship vs. SHIP names. --doncram (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit Nyttend restored all his changes. He might not have seen my last statement above when he started that edit. I reverted the article with edit summary clearly pointing to here for discussion. I do not want to edit war, but I do want to convey that I am seriously wanting discussion. If the article is simply reverted again, I will interpret that as actual edit warring. Nyttend, are you in fact wanting to get your way here and in many other articles, by bullying and edit warring? --doncram (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you're frustrated, Doncram, but if you throw out the baby with the bathwater, you can expect to get summarily reverted. Don't let your emotions blind you.
1) My overall position is that changes of different sorts ought to be discussed separately.
2) I am opposed to formatting ship names in ALL CAPS.
3) I favor spelling out abbreviations such as "CA-1", "Blvd.", and "S".
4) I favor the use of clarifying words such as "vicinity" in cases where they are verifiably accurate.
5) I'm neutral on whether table rows should ever have multiple images.
6) I'm generally against using a long word where a shorter one will do, i.e. "southwestern" for "southwest"
7) I'm in favor of supplying coordinates for archaeological sites that are marked with interpretive signs.
I hope this is the sort of discussion you wanted. Cheers,--Stepheng3 (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm a bully and an edit warrior...such a bully that I protect articles instead of blocking you for 3RR. I seriously doubt that there can be any reasonable discussion with someone who makes groundless personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my pointed question offended you Nyttend. It was meant as an assertion that your actions can at least be interpreted as seeming to be bullying-like and was meant to challenge you to do differently here. The link you just provides relates to previous, other edit warring history, which, broadly, I do think you are tied in with. There's been too long acceptance and involvement in edit warring by several editors, including me and you and Polaron. But I am not entirely at fault in that, and in fact I think Nyttend and others' edits have tolerated and furthered an edit warring culture, that is worth changing. I don't see a groundless personal attack present here.
Thanks Stepheng3 for commenting on specifics. To respond on those
1) My usual position would be that changes of different sorts ought to be discussed separately, but that an already-challenged practice of mixing contended and non-contended changes, with followup edits to add in more, is not to be tolerated either.
2) I am opposed to formatting ship names in ALL CAPS; rather use italicised names and also apply lower casing in parenthetical followons like "Shipname (steamboat)". This seems to agree at least partially with S, apparently we disagree with N.
3) I favor spelling out abbreviations such as "CA-1", "Blvd.", and "S". I think we all agree.
4) I favor the use of clarifying words such as "vicinity" in cases where they are verifiably accurate. Note usage of word "vicinity" in these articles is generally from NRIS directly, a generally reliable source. There are general issues about location info from NRIS which Nyttend has pointed out, which should be addressed in some central discussion, I concede. But I oppose stripping "vicinity" qualifier from NRIS to make unsourced location assertions instead. I think this may agree with S, but apparently we disagree with N or there is some further clarification needed.
5) I would allow table rows to include multiple images if an editor wants to do so, but would be open to central discussion. Would not override local/active editors' choice on this; I guess i would oppose another editor overriding that way too. I myself used 2 images in one row for a demolished house in List of NHLs in NY article which was questioned in a peer review, but seemed to get acceptance.
6) I'm neutral about using a long word where a shorter one will do, i.e. "southwestern" for "southwest".
7) I want to be careful about identifying archeological sites. Not sure what practice should be in terms of multiple edits by Nyttend disclosing locations, where situations vary greatly. Needs some higher level discussion, i.e. to set a Wikipedia policy similar to that on biography of living persons, as harm is likely to be caused in some cases. In some of the current cases, Nyttend appears to make connections that effectively reveal new info on locations, i am not sure whether that applies here or not.
In general, I am calling here and consistently for central discussion of many matters, to end churning in many articles and proliferation of problems. --doncram (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing no controversy regarding #3, I've gone ahead and restored the relevant changes, along with some supported by WP:USSH. In the interest of #1, I'm starting a separate section to discuss #7. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)NYT ... it would be more constructive if you would enter into a discussion here. Doncram is not the only editor involved. I've spent a great deal of time and effort on the NRHP lists, particularly those here in the SF Bay Area. As I think you're aware, I am an experienced editor and don't make willy-nilly decisions about how to display the information in these tables.

Specific comments re your edits and other issues raised above:

(1) I know that one of your pet projects out here is to "improve" (as you put it in your edit summaries) location descriptions. Although I don't take exception to adding wikilinks for highways or spelling out common abbreviations like St., Blvd. and Ave., I don't necessarily share the view that the latter is an "improvement". Do you also spell out Southeast in addresses like 200 Cherry St., SE? I don't think 200 Cherry Street, Southeast conveys anything that the abbreviated version does not. In fact, I think a good argument could be made that the longer version is more difficult to read (it certainly makes the articles somewhat larger byte-wise). That said, I don't feel strongly enough about this issue to make a stand.
(2) On the other hand, when you remove content as you did on this page, I think you owe an active and experienced editor such as myself the courtesy of discussing your edits first. First off, I disagree with your removal of the photos and text from the "Image" column. In the case of Forts Baker, Barry and Cronkhite, since they are three distinct locations, I don't see the harm in displaying a photo of each in the table. The same goes for the Fashion Shop and Stephen Porcella House in Novato. Secondly, I don't see the benefit of omitting "vicinity" from the "City or Town" column. For one thing, that's what the NPS has in its database and since that's our main source of information, it seems to me a violation of WP:V to exclude it. For another, it can be useful information for people who use this table as a guide for visiting NRHP sites.
(3) I emphatically object to displaying ship names in all caps. It's an artifact of the shortcomings of the NRIS database and the days of the typewriter. According to the Chicago Manual of Style, ship names should be italicized. If there's an H.M.S. or U.S.S. in the name, they should not be italicized. Thus, H.M.S. Pinafore is proper for the ship name (the title of Gilbert and Sullivan's light opera should be displayed as H.M.S. Pinafore). This topic was discussed relatively recently at WP:NRHP and although there were only a few contributors to the discussion, I think the consensus was as I've stated here.
(4) Identifying the locations of "Address restricted" sites is a tricky issue. In the case of Rancho Olompali, since it's a state park that's open to the public (a sign for which is immediately adjacent to Highway 101, the main north/south highway in and out of San Francisco), I don't see how including it's location in the table here should be a problem. In cases like this, I think it's best to defer to the judgment of people with local knowledge.

--sanfranman59 (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do, about Nyttend being offended and possibly refusing to discuss anything because he asserts i have been rude. I tried to clarify above; i don't think i said anything actually attacking in a wp:NPA way. I have, over many months, engaged Nyttend in some discussion about some of the NRHP list formatting issues, while gathering info about extent of some of the issues. I partly think Nyttend might be finding a declaration that i have been rude, to be a convenient excuse not to discuss anything.
Adding to the mix, also Nyttend made changes, including a ship name formatting change, and I reverted the big edit, at National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles, California. I opened a discussion section at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles, California#various changes which links to here, for possible consolidated discussion. --doncram (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Address and coordinates for Rancho Olompali

As I understand it, the rationale for the secrecy around the coordinates for archaeological sites is to protect them from vandalism and desecration by treasure-hunters. While this may have been a concern for Burdell Mansion when it was listed in 1973 (and would still be a concern for any unmarked burials on the site), I argue that it is not a present concern for the Mansion, which would be the main point of interest for most visitors to the state historic park. As you can see from the photograph, the mansion is marked with an interpretive sign, so any secrecy attached to its location is long gone. Adding coordinates for the Mansion does not create any additional risk of vandalism or desecration, since the Mansion is now a public attraction. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drakes Bay

The Drakes Bay Historic Archaeological District, at Drakes Bay, is now a National Historic Landmark. the coding for adding listings looks like i have to completely renumber the list to add this, so i wont do it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Register of Historic Places listings in Marin County, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lairds Landing

So, from what I can gather two structures, at Lairds Landing have been places on the National Register of Historic Places. This 2009 NPS report states that the structures are eligible. This Point Reyes Light article states that they were listed in 2015. This falls within the scope of WikiProject Asian Americans as the structures were built by a member of the Coast Miwok tribe, with Filipino heritage; and thus my interest.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Marin_County,_California