Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Proposed merge

There's no need to separate the listings in one municipality from the listings in the rest of the county. The lists should be merged. Powers T 12:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with User:Nyttend's decision to separate the Rochester listings. It is in keeping what was done for Buffalo and Syracuse. The Monroe County list is too long.--Pubdog (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. The total is 165 -- that's dwarfed by many of the other lists on Wikipedia. It's fewer than the 175 at List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, for instance. Powers T 11:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have split many large cities and other municipalities in NY off from their parent counties, and in other states as well (for instance, we have separate lists for Bristol County, Massachusetts and the cities of Fall River and New Bedford. Large lists are just unwieldy ... that list of TNG episodes should really be broken down by season, as most other episode lists are when the series ran for more than three or four seasons. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument here. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it makes best sense to keep the Rochester list separate from the listings in the remainder of the county. This is standard operating procedure with NRHP lists. --sanfranman59 (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look guys, speaking as an amateur and not someone wedded to what's come before, I'm telling you this list is only unwieldy when split. The average person coming to this article probably doesn't know whether a particular listing is within the city limits or not. The current combined length is not unreasonable, and it makes it much easier for readers to find the listing they're interested in. Please try to see this from the point of view of a non-NRHP expert. Powers T 19:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, these lists simply get too long; possibly unlike television episodes, we have the ability to make a clear division between city and non-city, so it's reasonable to divide. Your argument could similarly be made to say that we should give all listings in a state in the same list, since the average person coming to an article probably doesn't know if a site is in county A or county B. It is project consensus that lists of this size need to be split to follow WP:SIZE, and there's no good reason to treat this list differently. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the eventual response, though I would prefer it if this could be done a little more quickly. Anyway, I've read WP:SIZE and it appears geared primarily toward articles, not lists. I haven't yet found any guidelines on the recommended length of lists; if you could link them, I'd appreciate it. I also fear that you guys are coming at this from a different POV than I am. What is the goal of these lists? How is that goal served by splitting off Rochester properties? The Stone-Tolan House is in Brighton, but I had to check both lists to figure that out because I couldn't remember if it was here, in Brighton or 1500 feet to the northwest in Rochester. How is that at all helpful to anyone? Powers T 19:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed back in January 2010 at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Monroe County, New York#Split, at which time I merged a split out Rochester list back into the Monroe County article. It was left as 2 tables in one article. Then I see that in September 2011 editor Nyttend re-moved out the Rochester table to here. Frankly, I don't think it matters where the table sits. But, there is some advantage to having them both in one article, namely that a reader can find a site like the Stone-Tolan House more easily, and that all the sites appear in the linked Google and Bing maps. And, there is still no need, article size-wise, for the two lists to be split. The two current articles are about 30k, each, so the combined total is well below the 100k guideline for splitting. Since a local editor prefers for them to be in the one article, I would be willing to support re-combining them. However, it would be even better to develop both the articles with descriptions about the sites covered. LtPowers, how about working on developing these list-articles? By the way, i did travel through this area some time ago and got a couple pics to add, which I'll try to get around to uploading. --doncram 19:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of descriptions are desired? Powers T 18:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe descriptions in the table like in List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama, one of few Featured Lists of NRHP places. The List of NHLs in NY for a closer list. National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven, Connecticut for an NRHP list with some descriptions. I've created a couple descriptions here already by editing from the material-mostly written by editor Pubdog--in the linked articles. --doncram 00:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Register of Historic Places listings in Rochester, New York. 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) 06:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Rochester,_New_York