Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

for Semifamous re: Tillamook County: "US Naval Air Station Dirigible Hangar B"...

...is how its primarly (and somewhat out of date) listing is at the NRHP. [1] aka "Tillamook Naval Air Station Dirigible Hangars" aka "US Naval Air Station Tillamook County". So we are talking about the actual hangar being the historic thing in question. Does the hanger=the air station, or were there more structures involved with the air station than just the hangar? I was thinking that the hanger in this article should redirect to the Tillamook Air Museum. If the museum is in the hangar (is the hangar), then perhaps we can cover the history of the remaining hangar in the museum article. I renamed your link back to reflect the NRHP designation, but left it pointing to the air station article for now. In any case, if we are pointing a national historic place link somewhere, that somewhere ought to have the best information about the structure in question. What do you think? (I hope that made sense.) Katr67 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that pointing the link at the Naval Air Station Tillamook article is the best way to go. Perhaps there should be a redirect page for US Naval Air Station Dirigible Hangar B to Naval Air Station Tillamook(?), though I don't like that it doesn't specifically say Tillamook in the name of the link/article. Might there have been more than one US Naval Air Station Dirigible Hangar possibly named "B"? semifamous 18:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. "Might there have been more than one US Naval Air Station Dirigible Hangar possibly named 'B'?" I really doubt it. Would anyone search on that string? Probably not, but it might not hurt to make a redirect. You are right about it having "Tillamook" in the name somewhere, though the link under Tillamook on the NRHP page should show that that's where it is. Feel free to change it if you feel strongly about it. Even though I lean toward having the NRHP articles show up on the list the way they were originally nominated, it makes sense to change the building names to what people actually call them if necessary. Hmm. Are there any other surviving naval air station dirigible hangars? Katr67 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. There are a few surviving hangars, but not many. Only surviving hangars are in Santa Ana and Sunnyvale, CA, and Lakehurst NJ. [2] I took that picture at the Tillamook Air Museum last week. (If any other pictures in that album are useful for what you're doing, let me know and I'll upload them for you like I did for the Tillamook Air Museum picture.) Also there's a nice picture over here showing the hangar being built. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/903762/posts] semifamous 23:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resources

Search string "National Register of Historic Places" at the Salem Public Library Historic Photograph Collection Katr67 04:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization of state NRHP lists

A discussion (and a bit of action) has been started about standardizing the tables for all the state's NRHP lists. Discussion can be found here. Input is encouraged! Murderbike (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rim Drive Historic District sources

Katr67 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Righty-o. My mistake. More generally though, we've got to come up with a better way of referencing this list. Ipoellet (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Developing

Hey, i started developing this state list into a format that has seemed to work in some other state NRHP lists, with a leading summary table. I added more tables and then also started splitting out any counties with more than 40 or so NRHP listings, to keep file size down. Hope this is okay. doncram (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

newer listings

Newer listings since tables' 4/2008 source may require new rows in tables. Following are new listings, to be struck out as added or verified covered in tables (from weekly listings indexed at http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/nrlist.htm):

OREGON, BENTON COUNTY, Whiteside Theatre, 361 SW Madison Ave., Corvallis, 09000060, LISTED, 2/25/09

OREGON, BENTON COUNTY, Camp Arboretum Sign Shop, 8592-8399 NW Peavy Arboretum, Corvallis vicinity, 08000544, LISTED, 6/25/08

OREGON, BENTON COUNTY, Oregon State University Historic District, Monroe and Orchard Ave., 30th St., Washington Wy., Jefferson Ave., 11th St., Corvallis, 08000546, LISTED, 6/25/08

OREGON, BENTON COUNTY, Children's Farm Home School, 4455 US 20 NE., Corvallis vicinity, 08000254, LISTED, 3/25/08

OREGON, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, Canemah Historic District, Roughly bounded by Willamette River, 5th Ave., Marshall and Paquet Sts., Oregon City, 78002279, ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION APPROVED, 2/25/09

OREGON, DESCHUTES COUNTY, Wienecke, Emil and Ottilie, House, 1325 NW. Federal St., Bend, 08000472, LISTED, 5/29/08

OREGON, JACKSON COUNTY, Putnam-Neff House, 227 N. Berkeley Wy., Medford, 08000337, LISTED, 4/25/08

OREGON, LANE COUNTY, Boyer, Clarence and Ethel, House, 1138 E. 22nd Ave., Eugene, 09000061, LISTED, 2/25/09

OREGON, LANE COUNTY, Willakenzie Grange Hall, 3055 Willakenzie Rd., Eugene, 08001368, LISTED, 1/22/09

OREGON, LANE COUNTY, Eugene Civic Stadium, 2077 Willamette St., Eugene, 08000183, LISTED, 10/06/08

OREGON, LINCOLN COUNTY, Ernest Bloch House, 116 NW. Gilbert Way, Newport, 09000049, DETERMINED ELIGIBLE, 2/09/09

OREGON, LINN COUNTY, Albany Monteith Historic District (Boundary Increase), Elm St. SW to Calapooia and 19th Ave. SW to 11th and 12th Aves. SW, Albany, 08001017, LISTED, 11/13/08

OREGON, MARION COUNTY, Paris Woolen Mill, 535 E. Florence St., Stayton, 81000511, REMOVED, 12/24/08

OREGON, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Paul Bunyan Statue, SW corner of N. Denver Ave. and N. Interstate Ave., Portland, 08001393, LISTED, 1/28/09

OREGON, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Pacific Hardware and Steel Company Warehouse, 2181 NW Nicolai St., Portland, 08001263, LISTED, 12/31/08

OREGON, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Bohnsen Cottages, 1918-1926 SW. Elm St. and 2412-2416 SW. Vista Ave., Portland, 08001182, LISTED, 12/04/08

OREGON, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, USS BLUEBACK (submarine), 1945 Water Ave., located on the E. bank of the Wilamette River, Portland, 08000947, ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION APPROVED, 12/03/08

OREGON, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Portland Skidmore/Old Town Historic District, Roughly bounded by Harbor Dr., Everett, 3rd, and Oak Sts., Portland, 75001597, NHL ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION APPROVED, 10/06/08

OREGON, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, USS BLUEBACK (submarine), 1495 Water Ave., located on the E. bank of the Wilamette River, Portland, 08000947, LISTED, 9/18/08

OREGON, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Jorgensen, Victor H. and Marta, House, 2643 SW. Buenavista Dr., Portland, 08000405, ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION APPROVED, 7/02/08

OREGON, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Campbell Court Hotel, 1115 SW 11th Ave, Portland, 08000559, LISTED, 6/25/08 (Downtown Portland, Oregon MPS)

OREGON, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Downtown Portland, Oregon MPS 64500893, ADDITIONAL COVER DOCUMENTATION APPROVED, 6/24/08

OREGON, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Mount Hood Masonic Temple, 5308 N. Commercial Ave., Portland, 08000473, LISTED, 5/29/08

OREGON, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Jorgensen, Victor H. and Marta, House, 2643 SW. Buena Vista Dr., Portland, 08000405, LISTED, 5/15/08

OREGON, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, USS LCI-713 (Landing Craft), 1401 N. Hayden Island Dr., Portland, 07000300, ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION APPROVED, 4/09/08

OREGON, WASHINGTON COUNTY, Young, John Quincy Adams and Elizabeth, House, 12050 NW Cornell Rd., Portland vicinity, 08001264, LISTED, 12/31/08

OREGON, WASHINGTON COUNTY, Washington County Jail, 872 N.E. Twenty-eighth Ave., Hillsboro, 86002090, REMOVED, 12/24/08

OREGON, WASHINGTON COUNTY, Doriot-Rider Log House, 14850 132nd Terr, SW, Tigard, 08000554, LISTED, 6/25/08

(gone back through October weekly listings, more to add going back to April 2008) doncram (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all back to April, then sorted by county. doncram (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what source you're using, but the lists on this page (and all the subpages for each county for that matter) were completely up-to-date as of March 7 so I'm not sure why the need to reinvent the wheel, just use the listings from that diff (meaning use the redlinked NRHP name of the structure) and fill in the other info as you check it per the weekly listings. Katr67 (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The usual updating of NRHP list-articles each week, nation-wide, is done from these weekly announcements (NPS announcement source linked above) by Sanfranman59 and others (you too?), although occasionally one gets missed. I'm not sure, but i think i found that one i have processed so far was not included in the March 7 list version. And if a county is not yet table-ized, they just put in the redlink and perhaps the listing date. The additional detail here is needed for me to start a row properly in the new tables, which Elkman derived from the last available NRIS database download, covering listings through April 2008 only. I'm rather expecting that the Multnomah ones require nothing to be done, as those lists have been table-ized and new additions have been added in as rows immediately, i expect. Feel free to strike out ones where it is verified that the row is done. I have been respecting the pre-table lists, edit-noting that i am "processing" them as i go through them. I've been deleting them only after i verify any info in the old lists is captured properly in the new tables. For example, often they provide pipelinks to actual articles that the new table, at first, does not properly link to. I think i am not reinventing anything, creating any new work that doesn't need to be done, though this is certainly tedious to do, and perhaps to watch. doncram (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know about the weekly announcements. ::exasperated sigh:: That's what I (and Ipoellet, who created and maintains the Multnomah County pages) use to update the Oregon pages (more often than Sanfranman59, I might add), and yes that often involves "they" (I) just adding a redlink. You can see the page history for yourself. Though it's possible that one has been missed (I note that one property was recently made "eligible" but was not actually listed, so I left that one out), what I am trying to point out to you is that these lists were 99% accurate before. Of course use whatever method you want to create the tables, but note that the additional listings have already been "checked", though apparently you will need to add the additional info by hand. I'm also pointing out, as I do below, that although I suppose you don't have to take my word for it, the older listings were in their proper counties already. So as far as "reinventing", what I mean is you are asking questions about some of these that have already been "answered" so to speak. Katr67 (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. And yes then this table-izing is then requiring reinventing/reconstruction of all those county correctionsand other corrections. I'm sorry that it is forcing you to revisit previously resolved issues, but hopefully this is one step back, two steps forward though, in terms of getting to an improved Oregon list-article. doncram (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

editing notes in article

Please don't delete or comment out editing notes that are in the article. These don't properly belong permanently there, i agree. If someone wants to move them here to this development section in the Talk page, that is fine also, but if doing so please do with care to identify exactly where/what section they refer to. I think it is easier to leave them in the article temporarily while it is under active development. Sorry if it seemed like I stopped developing by my being away from this for a couple days. I am not done, will address all those question marks and other notes (eventually by moving any unresolveable ones to Talk page). doncram (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the editing notes, per WP:SELF, but you can have it your way per WP:OWN. Anyway, you didn't know that I was in the middle of fixing Polk County, but there wasn't any need to revert it back as I resolved those. I won't work on this any more unless I'm sure you're done. The Oregon list PDF I've linked to is the most up-to-date as of January. Please refer to it. Katr67 (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, i was wrong. Removing the edit notes. I didn't immediately think of just copying the tally table in here and editing it down. I can work from this instead.

table-izing still in process

Counties not finished in "table-izing" are indicated by question marks.

County # of Sites
4 Clatsop 60
10 Douglas 44?
14 Hood River 39
17 Josephine 57
18 Klamath 28
19 Lake 16
20 Lane 130
22 Linn 65
24 Marion 109? 106 now
30 Umatilla 39
31 Union 19
34 Washington 41

Other edit notes were about what is correct punctuation to use for George A. Wells, Jr. House in Polk County. Should it be George A. Wells, Jr., House or George A. Wells, Jr. House? Either way, can set up redirect from other.

And for Edward W. St. Pierre House, also in Polk County, listed in table now as being in vicinity of Salem, the listing did not appear in the table. Is it newer than 4/2008? No, it is now reported as listing February 21, 1989. Has it been delisted and that is not reported in Oregon state list, or is there an error in Federal NRIS to be reported?

Oh, okay, i see now that Salem is in two counties, Polk and Marion, and with your knowledge that this particular address is in West Salem neighborhood in Polk county, that determines the error is in NRIS. NRIS reports it in Marion county, so it came into the new table that i had put into National Register of Historic Places listings in Marion County instead. Removing from there, and adding this to list of wp:NRIS info issues to report to National Register for them to correct. doncram (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think then there are no remaining editor notes in the list-article, except for the old list info yet to be cross-checked vs. tables, for Klamath, Lake, and Union counties. doncram (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with missing listings

The problem with several locations in Oregon is that cities like Salem are in two counties. (And "vicinity" listings are of course vague and don't always mean a structure is in the same county as the city in which it is listed.) Again, I don't know what source you are using, but often the "official" listings put listed structures in the wrong county--Salem locations often default to Marion County although the city is also in Polk County. Please see the above diff and the county subpages for the corrected locations of these structures. Please don't rely on the "official" listings, except for the Oregon SHPO list of January, which has everything in the right counties. So there's really no mystery--us locals have already worked out most of these issues. Check the old version of the page if something seems to be missing. Katr67 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source I am using is the National Register's database, NRIS, for which the latest downloadable version of 4/2008 was used by Elkman in setting up the county-list-table-generator tool. (That tool is available at http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/countylist.php; it generates a cut-and-paste-ready county table.) NRIS is also the source for the nationalRegisterofhistoricplaces.com private site (which I call NRHP.COM), altho i am not sure if they updated theirs to the 4/2008 download or if theirs is 1/2007 version. So each of the new county tables I put in reflects NRIS errors, just like NRHP.COM does, and like many of the old wikipedia list articles whose editors relied on those sources. Like sometimes listing a place in the wrong county, or spelling its name wrong or spelling the town name wrong. I want to identify and report any NRIS errors that we can, by noting at wp:NRIS info issues. From that tracking list, i and others have now reported >200 small or large errors to NRIS which they are reportedly fixing now. I understand that for the Oregon list articles, you have corrected many errors, using the Oregon state list which I would think would be more accurate. I don't get why it has almost 100 more listings in total than NRIS apparently does (based on the tally-by-county total, which is based largely on NRIS-derived tables). That is too huge a discrepancy. Perhaps the Oregon list is correct in its detail and subtotal for each county, but then at the end it simply reports a total of the subtotals, without subtracting listings that are duplicated, like bridges that span 2 counties, and linear districts or others that could appear in 2 or more counties? But NRIS tables reflect those duplications, too, so i really am missing something here, for there to be such a big difference.
All discrepancies should be checked i guess. Oregon and NRIS match for the first 2 counties, alphabetically. For Clackamas, Oregon reports 78, NRIS table shows 77. Can you see which one is in the Oregon list but not in the NRIS-derived table for Clackamas? In my NRIS table pasting and then processing, I would note that a place like the Edward St. Pierre one was in the old list for Polk county but is not in the NRIS table for it, but I wouldn't directly detect that the NRIS table for Marion county lacks it. Perhaps something like that has happened for Clackamas, too. doncram (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Clackamas County listing: River Mill

Looks like River Mill Hydroelectric Project never made it into the original Wikipedia listing. It was added in 2001 and is just north of Estacada. [3] [4] But that doesn't explain its absence from NRIS. Katr67 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's its listing in the Oregon Historic Sites Database. Katr67 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the NRIS database with listing code "DR", which is deliberately excluded by Elkman from the county table. You can see that by searching for it in the regular Elkman infobox generator which now reports status DO and DR and some others perhaps. The NRHP.COM site which you point to does not make the distinction about delisted sites, eligible-but-owner-objection, and certain other categories in the NRIS database, so NRHP.COM erroneously reports as NRHP-listed a fair number of sites that are not in fact NRHP sites.
I'm not sure which DR is, but it could be another one where the place is deemed NRHP-eligible, but the owners object to having it listed. Sometimes owners file an objection even very late in the application process, and the NRHP policy is then not to list it. If Oregon works like New York State does, such a case would be listed on the state's own register despite the owner's objection. But your last source shows it as NR-listed in Oregon's database. So either DR means something different and Elkman's table-generator should include it, or there is an error in NRIS, or there is an error in the Oregon database. I'll inquire separately about this one to the National Register, and I think they will then consult with the state office. That's all for me for today probably. Thanks! doncram (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's run by Portland General Electric: [5]. I suspect they could be at one extreme or the other as far as how they feel about the NRHP designation. Eventually the Oregon P&RD will have all the NRHP noms online, too bad they don't right now, it might help give us an idea what's going on. Katr67 (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a write-up and a photo: http://www.sia-web.org/sian/images/sianv312.pdf Katr67 (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, i see it on p.16 of long newsletter of the Society of Industrial Archeology. Has stuff useful for other articles about bridge trusses and Syracuse area and more, i will pass it on to Syracuse people who might be interested, at least. doncram (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I want to wait to inquire about this to the National Register. In previous correspondence i have asked them how they prefer to operate, and I should respect their preference to deal with batches of state-specific info that they can address some on their own (if they can identify there is an error in their data entry of info from the state) and some via correspondence with the state (they will require the state to submit some kind of correction form, if the error in NRIS is due to incorrect info in the NRHP application). It seems likely we'll accumulate some more discrepances to report. I'll describe the issue here into wp:NRIS info issues, ready to go, though. Next 3 or 4 counties agree, at least in total if not verified in detail, between Oregon vs. NRIS, up to Deschutes. doncram (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also found River Mill in the Weekly List stating "listed", and it's on the SHPO's PDF list. But I, too, have been puzzled by its absence from the NRIS. I've been planning to e-mail the NPS about it myself. So thank you to Doncram for pursuing it with them. Ipoellet (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Done for now, on basis that it appears most likely that the River Mill Hydroelectric Project is not NRHP-listed, probably having an owner objection. So the wikipedia county-list article is excluding it from the main table and its total count. I put it down on the inquiries to go to the National Register and the state of Oregon, however. doncram (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Aargh. I went to create the article about the property, anyhow, and then paid more attention to Ipoellet's mention that it appears in NRHP's 2001 weekly listings. I found it there, oddly with a different listing date than the date given in the NRIS database individual listing with DR status (and hence in all the NRIS mirror sites). Re-evaluating, it seems this is an NRIS error only. So i added a row for it into the Clackamas NRHP list-table. Now Wikipedia total = 78 = Oregon PDF total. Recording into wp:NRIS info issues about NR status and about date. So, again, done for now, but differently. doncram (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what the "DR" status means? Ipoellet (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "DR" means. I put the question into the section of wp:NRIS info issues covering the inclusion/exclusion issues for Clackamas County listings. Anyone else is free to find out what it means sooner or by other means, but I am just planning to ask that question along with all others in one big batch about Oregon alone. The National Register office let me know they are working on previous batches of requests that were mixed across states. doncram (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clatsop County issues

NRIS table in National Register of Historic Places listings in Clatsop County, Oregon has 60; Oregon PDF has 60. But

Glancing quickly i don't see either of these in the Oregon PDF list for Clatsop county. doncram (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecola-->Bcola a typo: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=35CLT21&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq= Katr67 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Landing craft: [7] [8] (1st and 4th Google hits on "LCI-713" Katr67 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I added the external link for LCI-713 to its row in National Register of Historic Places listings in North Portland, Oregon. That fully takes care of that one; it should not have been in the old list for Clatsop county.
For the Ecola / Bcola one, I think all of the many google hits showing Bcola are not independent. Those all look like mirror sites of NRIS data to me. Is Bcola a typo for Ecola, picked up in all the copies? Why was the Ecola Point Site pipelinked here to Ecola State Park? It seems possible to me that the Bcola Point Site in the new NRIS table here is wrong, and it should be Ecola instead. doncram (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. There's no such thing as "Bcola". The place name in Oregon is "Ecola". Ergo anything that says "Bcola" is wrong. See Ecola State Park. Katr67 (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ecola Point Site was linked to the state park because that's roughly where the site is. Because Oregonians fixed the typo. Have you ever tried using Google to figure some of this stuff out, or do rely solely on NRIS? Katr67 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the tone of your last remarks here. It comes across to me as belligerent and belittling, is that what you meant? On this Bcola/Ecola item, it is my impetus here that is identifying a possible error in the NRIS system, which is then echoed in many websites. It is Katr67's error as well, seemingly to me at least, to identify the site as being called Bcola, as presented in Katr67's "Ecola-->Bcola a typo" analysis by Google search which seemed to suggest that the site should be called Bcola. If Katr67 meant the typo was the other way around, that would be an unusual interpretation of Katr67's explanation. I think i have been reasonably patient here and have been trying to accomodate all of Katr67's requests (don't show research issues on the main pages, cross-check against all entries in the March 7 version of this article, cross-check vs. Oregon PDF list which at first was asserted to be error-free, etc.). However, if Katr67 is meaning to badger me and criticize me for not Google searching (which might or might not resolve anything at all) before noting a research issue here, well then, I dunno what! :) doncram (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Why are you addressing me in the third person? I don't mean to be belligerent. I guess I should have spelled out more clearly that the typo is in the NRIS system (and since perpetuated by all those crappy NRHP mirror sites). But, as I've explained previously, several of us have worked hard to make the original list (pre-table) free of typos (I know not all states are like this). That's why the Ecola Point Site redirected to Ecola State Park. So to me it seemed clear that "Ecola" is the correct spelling of the locale, sorry if it didn't seem that way to you.

It's an honest question about Google. I work for the government, I've been paid to do research, I've worked as a fact-checker for newspapers, I've had the "inside scoop" on news reported in the paper, and I have maintained databases, and I can assure you that government sites (and newspapers, and databases!) are not the be-all-and-end-all of accuracy. It just seems odd to me that you are asking questions about things that I was easily able to cross-check with a quick Google (or whatever search engine) search in order to find a half-dozen sources that show the current name, status, etc. of these sites. Like I've noted elsewhere, it's frustrating to have to answer questions re: spelling, usage, current name of site that I felt have already been handled. I know you're not trying to reinvent the wheel, and I'm not wanting to come across as all WP:OWN about this, but since the Oregon folks have local knowledge that may trump the databases and lists, I was hoping you could make the assumption that the links, titles, locations, etc. in the original list were fairly accurate and that you could check out any discrepancies yourself and see that the corrections were...correct. I can see now that some of the corrections will need to be cited. I (and others) just quietly fixed things without tracking or citing how we arrived at the conclusions we did, but that doesn't help you very much, as you (and anyone else coming along) have no idea what our thought process and research into the matter were. I appreciate that you are going to point out some of these inaccuracies to the NRIS folks--that will help a lot.

I guess I need to know what your basic assumptions are about NRIS. Do you, until evidence is given to the contrary, assume that the NRIS database is correct? That's a fine assumption, of course. My basic assumption is that the NRIS database is a good place to start, but that local and updated knowledge trump the NRIS and that locals (at least locals who have proven research skills!) should be given "right-of-way", if you will, in correcting the NRIS listings as used in Wikipedia. I don't think that necessarily means we are working at cross-purposes, but it apparently has led to some conflict. I guess all I would ask is that you be somewhat more deferential to local knowledge. For my part, I need to realize that you are just trying to improve the encyclopedia and not trying to take over from the locals. Katr67 (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any question for me here for which I agree that you have any "need to know" or for which you don't already have an answer. You are acknowledging and/or should be acknowledging that the previous version (March 7 or any other date) of this state-wide List-article of NRHP sites had multiple errors, both of omissions and of erroneous inclusions. You are acknowledging (and should) that the NRIS system has multiple errors perhaps both ways. You are acknowledging that the Oregon PDF list has multiple errors, both ways. You are acknowledging, or should be, that the local knowledge reflected in some "corrections" constitutes wp:OR that is problematic, especially since there are multiple published sources contradicting the local knowledge, and just changing Bcola to Ecola or whatever will set up future issues, where future editors will point to the apparent contradiction vs. NRIS or other sources. So, what is any remaining question that you have for me? Maybe they have all been answered.
About your request that i "be somewhat more deferential to local knowledge", could you please be more specific. Note, I have been painstakingly cross-checking the March 7 version lists against the new NRIS lists, and noting discrepancies here to be sorted out. From my working on many other state lists, I do fully understand that instances where a name like "Bcola" was changed to "Ecola", or where a county location is different, may well reflect local, accurate knowledge. Or it may reflect local typos and outright errors. Where i have come to understand that there is most likely an NRIS error, in at least a couple Oregon cases I have recorded that into wp:NRIS info issues without raising any question here. For every question raised on this page, I have stated an intention to raise the question, presented with all evidence here, to the National Register and the state of Oregon in an organized way. Honestly, what more would you like for me to do? doncram (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have an answer for you. But for whatever reason, I find you extremely difficult to work with, so I'll just stay away from NRHP-related material until you are finished. Good luck. Katr67 (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, could you provide an example of a correction that is OR? Aboutmovies (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear that I do believe that corrections put in are usually correct and helpful, although I might call them wp:OR uncited and/or otherwise problematic because there is not a source given and perhaps no source is known by the contributor. It may be enough to help others hunt for and find and record a source, then the change is no longer OR uncited.
One example of wp:OR is a recent addition of location information for an Oregon archeological site, which I believe should not have been added, which at first I thot Katr67 added, but it turned out Katr67 only had moved coordinates info that had just been added by a different user. This is mentioned and linked at my Talk page. I corresponded with Katr67 at first, then with the different user about his/her source, and it was pure OR, purely personal knowledge/educated guessing by that other user with no published source given or known.
That the name of the Bcola/Ecola site in Clatsop County is Ecola could have been an OR and/or uncited issue, if the original list-article was built up from NRHP.COM (as I believe most state list-articles once were) and showed Bcola, and then a local editor had just changed Bcola to Ecola based on personal knowledge. That would be problematic, because there are many sources (NRIS, NRHP.COM, www.archiplanet.com, etc. which document Bcola rather than Ecola. For this state list I don't know the history, whether it was once based on the NRHP.COM list or whether it was, from an early date, based on previous versions of the Oregon state PDF list. For this site the Oregon PDF list shows Ecola however, and the Oregon PDF list was a source in the state-wide list-article, although it is not reported as a source in the now-separate Clatsop list-article that I split out. So that the name is Ecola appears not to be wp:OR, in that a source supporting the Ecola name exists, although the point is arguably under-sourced right now; the differences in the sources should perhaps be noted in a footnote in the Clatsop article now.
It appears to me to be wp:OR that the Bcola/Ecola site is in Ecola State Park, however, which is where the Ecola entry was wikilinked to. It may well be correct speculation, but I don't believe it is publicly known that the Ecola archeological site is located in that park, so I believe that is a wp:OR example.
It's hard to identify where other discrepancies derived from, hence whether to classify them as wp:OR or not. For example that USS LCI-713 (Landing Craft) was listed in Astoria, Oregon, in the old list. I can't tell what the source of that was. (Was it once documented there in a previous version of the Oregon PDF list, or was it a person just asserting it was there from personal recollection?) doncram (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me to be taking WP:OR a bit too far to say that knowledgeable editors are prohibited from correcting simple typos ("Bcola") unless they cite a source for the correction. To suggest so is to reduce the role of editor to that of a mere copyist. Where the correction could cause confusion when future editors try to verify the sources, then yes by all means include a footnote stating that a correction was made. But to refuse to allow a straightforward correction does little to advance the underlying goal of the OR policy: to avoid using unpublished ideas or arguments in Wikipedia. (See the essay at WP:NOTOR for someone else's parallel argument.)
Similarly, where sources contradict one another, we necessarily must rely on editors to edit. Either they must report on a controversy where one genuinely exists, or they must reject the source that is in error or out-of-date. In the case of LCI-713, the vessel was berthed at Astoria undergoing restoration when it was placed on the NRHP, but has since been moved to a permanent home in Portland. Some out-of-date sources still record it in Astoria, others are properly updated to state Portland. Some editors have exercised their discretion to judge http://www.amphibiousforces.org/ to be the most authoritative source on its current homeport. Others (me) have personally verified its location by going to see it there. Either way, editors exercising their knowledge to referee among sources on a narrow point of fact should not be classed as OR, but as responsible editing that does not introduce unpublished ideas or arguments.
On the other hand, there is a pitfall in contacting NPS for clarifications. I have seen it happen with other NRHP articles that a rather detailed response from the NPS e-mailed to a single Wikipedian is presented as a source for a moderately complex idea. This raises serious OR questions both because the NPS response was unpublished, and because the NPS response was driven by the Wikipedian asking the question in the first place. So, I would urge caution when using such correspondence to straighten out information in an article - it's very easy to cross the OR line.
BTW (and then I'll shut up), the best way to resolve the issues about the Ecola archeological site would be for someone to obtain the NR nomination form for the site (presumably redacted) and write its own article. Ipoellet (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doncrom, with Bcola, if it is published it means it is uncited, not OR. Stick a citation needed tag ans assume good faith. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ipoellet and Aboutmovies for your clarifications of the terms to use. I struck out, above, my original mention of wp:OR, and wrote in uncited instead. I do not use that term in general, so please forgive me for not understanding exactly the difference between wp:OR vs. uncited. I left wp:OR mentions in, above, where, responding to your challenge to describe instances, where I think it may have been wp:OR. Maybe I still don't get exactly what is wp:OR, but I don't think it matters. Any disagreement that Katr67 has with me is not about that, I don't believe. doncram (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I apologize for getting testy. This really must be painful to watch, where i am effectively questioning a lot that was done perfectly well before, in terms of getting Wikipedia to show the right thing already in many cases. Although I want to do it, it is not everyone's bag to do excruciating reconciliations and then correspond with the National Register and Oregon state about discrepancies which might change what they show (and then also NRHP.com etc.), but not change what we show in wikipedia. Anyhow, with the Federal Register link and other evidence, it is clear to even me that Bcola is an NRIS error, should show Ecola. And it was my bad to call anything wp:OR, i should have said uncited. I will change it to Ecola in the county list-table and report it to NRIS to correct. The USS LCI-713 (Landing Craft) one was in Astoria in the old list but is not in the Oregon PDF. Wikipedia has 60 and Oregon PDF has 60; no known differences in the detail, so call this county done. doncram (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Deschutes County issues

The Oregon report gives 32; the NRIS-based table gives 34. The latest added in both is the Emil and Ottilie Wienecke House. The NRIS table includes an Old US Post Office, 745 NW Wall, in Bend, which is the Old US Post Office in the Oregon report.

Perhaps there are three other house mislocated by NRIS into this county? Note, NRIS system provides for county location separately than city/town and accomodates a place being in one county yet "in the vicinity of" a town in a different county. The county is not looked up by them, it comes identified in the NRHP application for a site.

So to reconcile between the totals there must be at least one more listed in the Oregon report not in the NRIS table. What is the missing one, and what is the correct treatment for all 6 discrepancies, are each of these NRHP-listed places in the county or not. doncram (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, all 34 sets of coordinates in the Deschutes County table fall within the boundaries of the county according to Google Earth. In case you don't know how to check this, it's really pretty simple (assuming, of course, that you've installed Google Earth). First, click "show" and then "export all coordinates as KML" in the box generated by GeoGroupTemplate. Save the file somewhere you will be able to find it on your computer (on my computer, at least, the "Open with" option doesn't work). Open the file in Google Earth and turn on the Borders and Labels layer. That's it. I use this approach all the time as a gross check of the accuracy of the geocode coordinates we get from the NRIS database. --sanfranman59 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In comparing the Elkman-generated table for Deschutes County with the report of individually listed properties from the Oregon database, I'm getting different results than doncram. The report I'm getting out of the Oregon database only includes 31 properties, not 32. The properties that are in the NRIS database, but not listed individually in the Oregon database are:
  • Congress Apartments
  • Benjamin Hamilton House
  • Thomas McCann House
  • Robert D. Moore House
  • George Palmer and Dorothy Binney Putnam House
  • Emil and Ottilie Wienecke House
Those in the Oregon database but not in the NRIS are:
  • Hope-Van Allen House, 352 NW Drake Rd, Bend, Deschutes County
  • House, 503 NW Delaware, Redmond, Deschutes County
  • Shevlin-Hixon Mill Buildings, Riverside Blvd , Bend, Deschutes County
Although the Hamilton, McCann, Moore and Putnam houses are not listed individually in the Oregon Historic Sites Database, they are in the database as contributing properties to the Drake Park Historic District. I found all four as having been individually listed in the weekly listings at the NPS website. I don't know why the Congress Apartments and the Wienecke House don't come out in the individually listed properties report. Both are in the Oregon database if you search all properties.
Interestingly, the Hope-Van Allen House was listed by the NRHP the same day as the River Mill Hydroelectric Project (see discussion in the section previous to this one) and the Moses and Mary Hart Stone House and Ranch Complex. None of the three are included in the tables generated by Elkman's tool. I spot checked a few others sites that were announced in the same weekly listing and of the 5 or 6 I checked, there was one other (Bonnyview Elementary School in Murray, Utah) that's missing in the table generated by Elkman's tool.
As for the house at 503 NW Delaware in Redmond and the Shevlin-Hixon Mill Buildings, I can find no evidence that they are listed on the NRHP. In fact, a Google search of Shevlin-Hixon Mill Buildings returned a PDF document that says all of the buildings were demolished as of 2007. --sanfranman59 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's very helpful! An Elkman NRIS table will show 31, because it does not include the Emil and Ottilie Wienecke House which was manually added to the table, having been listed in May 2008. Perhaps i should have clarified that was in the 32 that i termed NRIS table. I guess this clarifies that there are errors in the Oregon list, too, because it disagrees with the Oregon database in some cases. This is extraordinary that we have several informed people here and several sources on what should possibly be in a state-wide list to can get perspective about this. I don't think wp:NRHP has that kind of perspective available about the NRHP list in any other state. doncram (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time right now to help clear any of this up, but I will point out that the state SHPO database is in Beta, and it has typos, so I think it should only be considered a reliable source when there is another source to back it up. It could certainly be missing items. For that matter, the State PDF list of January has typos too, so it also can't be considered the final word. Cheers. Oh and P.S. Shevlin, Oregon is a company town/ghost town that had at least three locations, two in Klamath County and one in Deschutes. The Shevlin-Hixon stuff was probably related to it. The town was bascially moved around using the railroad, so I don't know for sure, but it's quite likely it has been demolished. Nevermind, I see the mill was in Bend. Katr67 (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Hope-Van Allen House appears in the NRHP weekly listings, in the same week as another NRHP apparent error. So it seems the error on that one is in NRIS; i will add a row for it to the county list-table and post it to wp:NRIS info issues.
I am reconciling between NRIS-based wikipedia version vs. the Oregon PDF list, not vs. the Oregon database, which seems to differ. The "Emil and Ottilie Wienecke House" does appear in the Oregon PDF, tho stated above not to be in the database. So, to reconcile between the revised 35 in wikipedia now, we have: 32 in Oregon PDF, +5 that seem NRHP-listed but omitted (Congress Apartments, Benjamin Hamilton House, Thomas McCann House, Robert D. Moore House, George Palmer and Dorothy Binney Putnam House), -2 on Oregon list not on NRIS (House, 503 NW Delaware; and Shevlin-Hixon Mill Buildings) = 35. That's attributing 7 errors to Oregon PDF. I think it's okay to describe that way, and ask National Register and Oregon to respond to that. Call this done. doncram (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Douglas County issues

The NRIS-based table at National Register of Historic Places listings in Douglas County, Oregon lists 44; the Oregon report gives 46. One difference is:

  • English Settlement School, in Oakland, was in old list and is in Oregon report but not the table. Not in NRIS or in NRHP.COM.
  • In Reedsport, Umpqua River Bridge No. 01822 (image) does not appear in table, was in old list and is listed in Oregon PDF. Is this a bridge spanning 2 counties? But it is not in NRIS for any county. Not in NRHP.COM either.

doncram (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English Settlement School was listed in 2007: http://www.prd.state.or.us/news.php?id=954 (first Google hit on "English Settlement School"+Oregon+"National Register"). The bridge was listed in '05, along with all the other coastal bridges: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/listings/20050902.HTM Katr67 (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of resources: Pics of English Settlement School from the University of Oregon libraries. Katr67 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As these appear to be NRIS omission errors, I created new rows for the Umpqua bridge and for the English Settlement School in the county table, including those references. Adding these items to wp:NRIS info issues. County table now matches Ore list. doncram (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Hood River County issues

Wikipedia table count is 38. Oregon PDF is 36. Not compared in detail, so there could be other differences, too, but the 2 difference could be explained by:

  • Oregon PDF list appears to omit Barlow Road, which is in NRIS for Hood River, Multnomah Clackamas, and Wasco counties.
  • Oregon PDF list omits Columbia River Highway, in NRIS and wikipedia tables for Hood River, Multnomah, and Wasco Counties

doncram (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Call it done.  Done[reply]

Jackson County issues

Wikipedia has 148 vs. Oregon PDF has 149 total: 1 net discrepancy.


Sort wikipedia table by town to compare. Note, wikipedia has showing in Ashland 5 places: Ashland Municipal Powerhouse, and Buckhorn Mineral Springs Resort and Dutchman Peak Lookout, Mountain House, and Reginald Parsons Dead Indian Lodge, while Oregon PDF shows those all in Ashland vicinity. The NRIS-based tables strip out the "vicinity of". Same for 3 of the 6 Butte Falls ones, Wikipedia omits "vicinity of".

William Bybee House is listed in NRIS in Medford, while Oregon PDF lists it in Central Point. Both have entries in each town. Which is its location?

Carpenter, A.S.V., and Helen Bundy House is listed in NRIS/wikipedia in Central Point, lists it in Medford as Alfred S. V. and Helen F. B. Carpenter House. Article name should perhaps then be Alfred S. V. and Helen F. B. Carpenter House with others redirected to it. Which is its location?

Dead Indian Soda Springs Shelter is in Eagle Point in NRIS/wikipedia; appears in Jacksonville in Oregon PDF.

Antelope Creek Bridge is not in NRIS/wikipedia, appears in Oregon PDF in Eagle Point. It is not individually listed in the NRHP infobox system (Addendum: not if you search just on the name, but, with refnum from elsewhere, searching on refnum yields infobox, shows it has listing status "RN" which must mean removed). What's up with it? Oregon PDF reports listing date 11/29/1979, refnum 79002071. This Waymarking.Com page explains: the bridge was taken down, reassembled by volunteers in 1987 to cross a different creek. "The bridge was on the National Register of Historic Places but alterations (arched window cutouts) during the reconstruction caused the bridge to be removed from the register." So the error appears to be in the Oregon PDF. Creating stub article for it.

Those are differences through Eagle Point in the NRIS/wikipedia list, others not checked.

The 1 discrepancy may be just the Antelope Creek Bridge one. Assume that is the case, call this county done. doncram (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Jefferson County issues

2 discrepancies: NRIS/wikipedia 3 vs. Oregon PDF 5. Difference is 2 in Oregon PDF:

  • Olallie Lake Guard Station, appears in NRIS individual report as being near Estacada, creating stub article. Perhaps it is listed in NRIS in a different county? New stub article shows its approximate location perhaps in Jefferson County but near Wasco County and others. Estacada is located in Clackamas County. NRIS/wikipedia lists for Clackamas and Wasco counties do not include it, nor does Oregon PDF list for Wasco. What wikipedia county table did it get put into, if any? Unclear what county it is really located in.
The guard station looks like it is in the Marion County listing. It is in fact in Jefferson County going by the map/coordinates and knowing that the coordinates are about right. And Estacada is the closest "city" to it if driving (other communities are closer though). By plane Madras is probably closer. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Moved row from Marion County table to this county table, noted apparent NRIS county location error at wp:NRIS info issues. Takes care of that one for now.
It is shown in Oregon PDF in Marion county, as being in Unincorporated area. It is shown in NRIS-based wikipedia table for Marion County, too. This is an apparent case where Oregon PDF lists in both counties, so it is first duplicate noted in Oregon PDF list. Does it in fact run through both counties? If so, then it is an NRIS error to report at wp:NRIS info issues. doncram (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Mapquest which shows county lines, the NRIS-provided coordinate point 44°27′10″N 121°53′57″W / 44.45278°N 121.89917°W / 44.45278; -121.89917 (Oregon Pacific Railroad Linear Historic District) is not far from the county border. Is is described in NRIS as "Roughly a 20 mi. section of the Old Railroad Grade bet. Indanha and The Cascade Range summit", with location in or near Santiam Junction, Oregon. (Further, it is listed in Oregon PDF in Jefferson, Linn, and Marion counties). Calling that an NRIS error, reporting as part of info issues. Call this county done for now. doncram (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Josephine County issues

NRIS/wikipedia shows 57; Oregon PDF shows 58. 1 discrepancy at least, to resolve.

Oregon PDF lists Old Placer Mine on Rockydale Rd. in Cave Junction area, not in NRIS/wikipedia. What's up with that? Is it in this county, is it indeed NRHP-listed, etc.? Using refnum from Oregon PDF, individual NRHP infobox serves up that it has listing status "DR" in NRIS. Will ask what DR means. But assuming that means it is not currently NRHP-listed, and that the code properly applies to this place, the error appears to be in Oregon PDF list. Stub article started.

No other differences obvious, in listings through Cave Junction in NRIS/wikipedia, others not checked.

Perhaps the Old Placer Mine one is the only discrepancy. Call this county done. doncram (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Klamath County issues

NRIS/wikipedia shows 28; Oregon PDF shows 27; at least net 1 discrepancy to resolve.

Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge shown in wikipedia in Worden; shows as Address Restricted, no town given, in Oregon PDF. Isn't this a public place, shouldn't its location be shown in Oregon PDF? Included in both tho.

NRIS/wikipedia includes Honeymoon Creek Snow-Survey Cabin with Ashland, OR given as its nearest town. New stub article for it shows coordinates placing it in Klamath County. Hmm, ok, shows in Unincorporated area in the Oregon PDF list.

NRIS/wikipedia includes Crater Lake Lodge in or near Klamath Falls; Oregon PDF lists in Crater Lake. Note, both list Rim Drive Historic District and Rim Village Historic District in Crater Lake. Seems NRIS/wikipedia perhaps could list Crater Lake Lodge in Crater Lake, then, but it is not a clear error.

NRIS/wikipedia includes Winthrow-Melhase Block; Oregon PDF omits. New stub article shows Stevens Hotel alternative name (which doesn't appear in Oregon PDF either) and verifies that its coordinates place it in Klamath County. Call this an Oregon PDF omission error.

That explains the one net discrepancy; call this done for reconciliation purposes. doncram (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Lane County issues

Oregon PDF reports 125; the NRIS table (+3 post 4/2008 additions) reports 130. Discrepancy of net 5 to explain.

doncram (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Musick Guard Station is listed in NRIS as in or near Cottage Grove; oregon lists in Unincorporated, no obvious error.
  • NRIS separately lists Frank L. and Ida H. Chambers House, listed September 14, 1987 at 1006 Taylor St., vs. Fred E. Chambers House and Grounds, listed September 27, 1996, 1151 Irving Rd. Oregon lists the first within Eugene, lists the second in Eugene vicinity.
  • NRIS lists Flanagan Site in Eugene vicinity, Oregon leaves at Address restricted, and gives no town.
  • The NRIS/wikipedia table gives University of Oregon Library and Memorial Quadrangle and Women's Memorial Quadrangle Ensemble. Oregon lists these two as "University of Oregon Library & Memorial Quad" vs. "University Of Oregon Women's Memorial Quad Ensemble". One may also be known as Knight Library other as Gerlinger Hall. It's confusing in the articles, which is the right refnum and which is to be covered. Articles need to refer to each other, and be sorted out. Refnums are 90000370 and 92001320, but it is not a discrepancy in the NRIS vs. Oregon PDF reconciliation.
  • 3: NRIS/wikipedia includes Wilder Apartments, Oregon PDF omits that. Map shows clearly in Lane cty.
  • NRIS/wikipedia lists Wildcat Creek Bridge at or near Walton; Oregon includes, but locates at Eugene vcty.
  • 4: NRIS/wikipedia includes Conde McCullough-designed Ten Mile Creek Bridge No. 01181 (try also Ten Mile Creek Bridge); Oregon list omits. Is this shown in a different county by Oregon? Bridge may be near Lincoln county, but it is not in Oregon list for Lincoln. Map shows location that seems in Lane cty.
Oregon PDF lists in Lincoln County. Mapquest view of the coords show them at Ten Mile Creek at the coast, in Lane County. Lincoln County is a few miles north. So error is in Oregon PDF. doncram (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NRIS/wikipedia includes Stewart Bridge; Oregon omits. Oregon includes it in Cottage Grove vcty. Map shows in Lane County.
  • 5: NRIS/wikipedia includes, but Oregon PDF omits: Archeological site 35LA6. No map.
  • 125 + 5 =130 vs. 130. Call this done. doncram (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Lincoln County issues

NRIS-based wikipedia shows 34; Oregon PDF shows 35: 1 net discrepancy to explain.

Mapquest view of the coords for the place show it at Ten Mile Creek at the coast, in Lane County. Lincoln County is a few miles north. So error is in Oregon PDF.
  • No other major differences obvious to me in the details of the wikipedia vs. Oregon PDF lists, although subjective vicinity/nearest city identifications vary somewhat.

Call this done. doncram (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Linn County issues

Oregon PDF lists 68 while NRIS table had 65. Manual counting verifies Oregon PDF shows 68 items. The difference includes:

  • Marion Forks Guard Station in Marion Forks, Oregon, on old list, not in NRIS-based table for Linn County, but is in individual NRIS. Listed by NRIS in Marion County. By its NRIS coordinates, looking in Mapquest which shows county borders, it is in Linn County. Put into wp:NRIS info issues to request corection. Row moved from Marion to Linn County.

Revised, current Wikipedia list has 67 vs. 68 in Oregon PDF list: At least one more difference, not identified. doncram (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oregon PDF list includes the recent Albany Monteith Historic District boundary expansion, as well as Monteith Historic District, while the wikipedia list includes only one. Seems like it should be counted as just one, expanded. Created article to cover the original plus expansion as one NRHP listing. Call this an Oregon PDF error. Call this done.

 Done

Malheur County issues

1 discrepancy: check if is the Malheur listing on same day as River Mill in 2001. Yes, it was Moses and Mary Hart Stone House and Ranch Complex, on weekly listing then. Added to wp:NRIS info issues. Row added to wikipedia table. So 16 in wikipedia = 16 in Oregon PDF now.  Done

Marion County issues

The NRIS table report for the county generates 109 entries. The modified wikipedia table for National Register of Historic Places listings in Marion County, Oregon lists 106 entries(since updated), while the Oregon PDF reports 103. What are the differences, can anyone else spot them please?

Also, in Stayton, Oregon, the old wikipedia list included Mt. Pleasant Presbyterian Church which does not appear in the NRIS table. It shows in an individual NRIS report, however, so it seems NRIS must have it recorded in a different county. At first glance I don't see it included in the Oregon PDF report for this county. doncram (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pleasant is southeast of Stayton, across the Santiam River in Linn County. Katr67 (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good, that one does appear in the table now for National Register of Historic Places listings in Linn County, Oregon, so nothing more to do on that one. doncram (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need to create stub article for it though to capture this. Done. doncram (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olallie Lake Guard Station which is listed in NRIS table and current wikipedia table is apparently in Jefferson County, instead, as noted by Aboutmovies in Jefferson County discussion above. Apparent NRIS error. Moving row from this county table to Jefferson County table now, will report in wp:NRIS info issues. doncram (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That brings to 103 rows in wikipedia table, same as 103 in Oregon PDF. Call this done. doncram (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Multnomah County issues

Discrepancy of 3.

Oregon PDF list appears to omit Barlow Road, which is in NRIS for Hood River, Multnomah, and Wasco counties.

Huh? The Barlow road is in Wasco, Hood River, and Clackamas counties - it doesn't enter Multnomah at all. It's correct that the latest version(s) of the Oregon SHPO PDF list shows multi-county sites under the heading of only one. Earlier versions listed such sites under each county that they extend into. Similar situation for the Columbia River Highway (which BTW is in Wasco/Hood River/Multnomah). Are you sure you're not confusing the NRIS listings for Barlow Road and CRH? Ipoellet (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, i guess i am absorbing info only slowly. Good no issue about Barlow Road for this county. It appears in the wikipedia tables for Clackamas, Hood River, and Wasco counties, i am presuming that it is in NRIS for each of those. In the current Oregon PDF list, it is reported only in Clackamas County. Updating everywhere about that, now, in this edit. I will update also for the Columbia River Highway, soon. Does that run through more than one of the Multnomah sections, and if so is it reported in each one of their tables? It could explain some of the >= 3 discrepancies remaining for Multnomah. Please do say if you know of any other multi-county (or multi-Multnomah district) properties, too. Thanks, doncram (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Columbia River Highway appears in the 3 list-articles, as you know, but the Oregon PDF reports it only in Multnomah County. Tried to update for it here, in reconciling between the two. doncram (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 2 of the 3 Multnomah Co. discrepancies: Paul Bunyan Statue (North Portland) and Pacific Hardware and Steel Company Warehouse (Northwest Portland) are both in the Wiki tables, but are too new to show up yet in the PDF. Ipoellet (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the 3rd discrepancy is the Portland Skidmore/Old Town Historic District, which appears in the Wiki tables for both Northwest Portland and Southwest Portland, and so is double-counted in the tally below. (BTW, just to be clear, the district does extend into both quadrants and is properly included in both lists.) Ipoellet (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks. doncram (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Polk County issues

The wikipedia list now shows 27 while a new NRIS table would show 26; the Oregon PDF shows 27. The discrepancy was Edward St. Pierre House, which is in West Salem neighborhood that is in Polk County not in the main part of Salem that is in Marion County. Fixed by Katr67 in wikipedia list; stub article created by me; already recorded into wp:NRIS info issues to request for National Register to fix its county field for this one. Call this done.  Done

Wasco County issues

Wikipedia table and NRIS report 33; Oregon PDF reports 33. But, Oregon PDF omits two:

  • Oregon PDF list appears to omit Barlow Road, which is in NRIS for Hood River, Multnomah Clackamas, and Wasco counties.
  • Oregon PDF list appears to omit Columbia River Highway, which is in NRIS for Hood River, Multnomah, and Wasco counties.

So, the Oregon PDF must include two others not yet identified. doncram (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SHPO PDF counts the "Sharp Family Residential Ensemble" 3 times, accounting for the 2 excess count. (The ensemble is a single NRHP listing, but consists of 3 adjacent houses at 3 addresses.) Ipoellet (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Washington County issues

Discrepancy of 2. 40 vs. 42?

The current NRIS-based table now in the article includes 41 listings, while the Oregon PDF reports 40. The relatively recent addition of Doriot-Rider Log House and the delisting of Washington County Jail are reflected in both. The discrepancy could be explained by the recently added Young, John Quincy Adams and Elizabeth, House being included in the NRIS based table. It is stated to be in the vicinity of Portland. Perhaps it appears in a different county in the Oregon list? Which county should it be included into?

doncram (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Naming issues addressed on the WaCo page. As to the location issue, the Young house is in WaCo, it just has a Portland Zip Code as do many places in the county (Portland is in three counties). Aboutmovies (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

41 in wikipedia table, difference vs. 40 in Oregon PDF is the Young House one. Call this done.  Done

Yamhill County issues

NRIS-table/wikipedia lists 79; Oregon PDF shows 78. Net discrepancy of 1.

  • John T. Hash House appears in Oregon PDF but not NRIS table, not NRIS individually. Oregon PDF states 120 5th St., Dayton, listed 3/16/1987 (same date as many others) 87000395.
  • Monahan House at 120 5th St., Dayton, is listed in NRIS. Seems to be same as John T. Hash House, although NRIS listing should show alternate name while it does not. Created stub, stating that Monahon House vs. John T. Hash House are alternate names, set up redirects. Reported via wp:NRIS info issues that there is an apparent missing alternate name for this one.
  • NRIS-table/wikipedia includes Dr. Stuart House, also known as Verduzco Residence, listed March 16, 1987, at 103 Ferry St., Dayton; Oregon PDF omits. Record that as an Oregon error of omission for now, call this done. doncram (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Reconciliation of wikipedia tables vs. Oregon PDF

This compares tallies in the wikipedia tables, vs. Oregon PDF with its January 2009 cutoff. Note, the Oregon total reported turns out to be exactly the sum of its county subtotals, with no allowance for duplications. The wikipedia total is a moving target. If a wikipedia omission or other error is identified, it should just be fixed. So reconcilation here will tend to show only apparent errors in Oregon PDF, not wikipedia errors.

County # of Sites
wikipedia 		# of Sites
ORE PDF 		New inclusions not yet shown Apparently erroneous inclusions Apparently erroneous exclusions discrep remaing
1 Baker 13 13 0
2 Benton 52 52 0
3 Clackamas 78 78 0
4 Clatsop 60 60 0
5 Columbia 10 10 0
6 Coos 51 51 0
7 Crook 6 6 0
8 Curry 45 45 0
9 Deschutes 35 32 2: House at 503 NW Delaware and Shevlin-Hixon Mill Buildings 5: Congress Apartments, Benjamin Hamilton House, Thomas McCann House, Robert D. Moore House, George Palmer and Dorothy Binney Putnam House 0
10 Douglas 46 46 0
11 Gilliam 3 3 0
12 Grant 10 10 0
13 Harney 7 7 0
14 Hood River 38 36 2:Barlow Road, Columbia River Highway 0
15 Jackson 148 149 Antelope Creek Bridge 0
16 Jefferson 5 5 0
17 Josephine 57 58 Old Placer Mine 0
18 Klamath 28 27 Winthrow-Melhase Block 0
19 Lake 16 16 0
20 Lane 130 125 2: Clarence and Ethel Boyer House, Willakenzie Grange Hall 3: Ten Mile Creek Bridge, Wilder Apartments, Archeological site 35LA6 0
21 Lincoln 34 35 Ten Mile Creek Bridge 0
22 Linn 67 68 Albany Monteith Historic District double counted with Monteith Historic District 0
23 Malheur 16 16 0
24 Marion 103 103 0
25 Morrow 4 4 0
26.1 Multnomah: Portland North 26 Paul Bunyan Statue (North Portland)
26.2 Multnomah: Portland Northeast 74
26.3 Multnomah: Portland Northwest 124 Pacific Hardware and Steel Company Warehouse (Northwest Portland)
26.4 Multnomah: Portland Southeast 94
26.5 Multnomah: Portland Southwest 203
26.6 Multnomah: Other 33
26.7 (less duplicate) (1)[1] 0
26.8 Multnomah:Total 553 551 2 (noted above in North Portland and in Northwest Portland 0
27 Polk 27 27 0
28 Sherman 5 5 0
29 Tillamook 29 29 0
30 Umatilla 39 39 0
31 Union 19 19 0
32 Wallowa 14 14 0
33 Wasco 33 33 2:Sharp Family Residential Ensemble triple-listed 2:Barlow Road, Columbia River Highway 0
34 Washington 41 40 Young, John Quincy Adams and Elizabeth, House 0
35 Wheeler 1 1 0
36 Yamhill 79 78 Dr. Stuart House, aka Verduzco House 0
TOTAL 1,902 1,891 5 8 14 0
(less duplicates) (6)[2] (2)[3] (4)
TOTAL 1,896 5 8 10

References

  1. ^ Within Multnomah County, Portland Skidmore/Old Town Historic District spans an edge and is included in Wikipedia lists for both Northwest and Southwest Portland.
  2. ^ Barlow Road is a linear district in three counties: Clackamas, Hood River, and Wasco. Columbia River Highway is a linear district in three counties: Hood River, Mulnomah, and Wasco. Oregon Pacific Railroad Linear Historic District is a linear district in Jefferson, Linn, and Marion counties.
  3. ^ Oregon PDF fails to subtract any duplications from its total across counties. Oregon Pacific Railroad Linear Historic District appears in its Jefferson, Linn, and Marion county lists.
Reconciliation
Oregon total 1891
less duplications (sites spanning counties) shown in Oregon PDF, not accounted for in Ore total (2)
plus Oregon not yet showing new NRIS sites 5
less Oregon misidentifications of sites as NRIS (8)
plus Oregon omitting to recognize other NRIS sites (including duplications) 14
less duplications among those omissions (4)
Subtotal 1896
less Wikipedia total 1896
yet to be identified, net 0 !
Reconciliation done! doncram (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NRHPs with ndash in title

I've been doing a lot of disambiguation of NRHP articles recently and have come across a number of cases where an Oregon NRHP has been set up to have ndash in its title, such as for Buckler–Henry House which is currently a red-link, listed within National Register of Historic Places listings in Southeast Portland, Oregon. I think the ndash is technically correct, but in most or all other states, editors have not replaced hyphens in the NRHP list-articles. I come across it just now because i was developing Henry House disambiguation page, which should cover the Buckler-Henry House among others, and the approach i use tries a hyphen version first. And i've come across another Oregon one or two recently. It's appropriate, I believe, to set up a redirect from hyphenated Buckler-Henry House to ndashed Buckler–Henry House, so readers searching for it will find it. But such a redirect will get deleted by a bot if the target is a red-link. So I want to create a stub article for the place now, too, as part of fixing the situation permanently.

And in general to address these, what i'd like to do is run AWB to find the occurences of ndash in the Oregon NRHP list-articles, and to create stub articles for them, and to set up redirects from the hyphenated versions of the names. I wonder if Oregon editors are fine with that, or if anyone would prefer something different. I could also list the occurences here for Oregon editors to revisit, but don't want to bother if no one cares about the stubs being created. I'll watch here for comments. --doncram (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've created some of the redirects from hyphen version to ndash version of name, and created 5-6 stub articles so that the redirects are not deleted, such as Boschke–Boyd House. Having the redirects in place often turns out to connect in various unexpected articles, such as architect articles, in addition to disambiguation pages. It seems productive to do this. So, i expect to keep going at this, for ndashed Oregon articles, although I'll watch here for any feedback. Offhand i think the ndashing in the NRHP lists is technically correct to do, but I'd rather see the articles created first and ndash moves done only later. It's only in Oregon that ndashing has been / is being done, AFAIK. If the ndashing is set up, though, the redirects and stub articles need to be created promptly, IMO. An alternative would be to drop the ndashing, and not create the stubs, but that might be viewed as going backwards.
Thanks, Ipoellet, for visiting and further fixing up some of the stubs i created. Some apparently needed ones are:
slightly different ones with space ndash space, where redirect from ndash only and hyphen only versions needed:
All the above are currently red-links in Multnomah County, North Portland, or Northeast Portland NRHP list-articles, when listed here. Presumably more in rest of Portland lists, and elsewhere in Oregon, to be addressed. --doncram (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe it's not too tedious to list them all out here and just monitor that redirects are created when articles are created.
I notice also Aboutmovies and Tedders(sp?) editing some of the ones created. Thanks. Here are more, mostly finishing Portland:
--doncram (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more to watch for, in Clatsop county (for which items also would show up in corresponding dab pages Black House (disambiguation) and Wilkinson House (disambiguation), too):
Or are these links not working...it's impossible to see difference between hyphen vs. n-dash in edit mode... --doncram 03:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Oregon