Hi folks, the above article is up at peer review and I thought people here might like to take a look. Bamse (talk·contribs) has stated an intention to take the article to FAC, and as a World Heritage Site it would be great to see this article promoted. Nev1 (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
They certainly should be covered by this wikiproject, both the national-level ones known as Rijksmonuments and the provincial-level historic sites as well, and both archeological sites and other kinds of historic sites. My Dutch is a bit rusty though, so if anyone else can decipher http://www.monumenten.nl/site/nl-nl/Home.htm a bit better than i can, to add more to what I just added to our project page, please do. Mjroots, do you happen to know if these are covered in the Nederlands language wikipedia already? doncram (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Certainly, and you should just create it IMHO. Are there 53,000 of them, by the way? Lots of potential for growth. doncram (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Rijksmonument article just started, and several people have added to it. Since there was no separate article on this topic before, it would be eligible for DYK, if we could get 1,500 characters of writing in the article. :) Assuming that is possible, I'll start a DYK nomination (at Template talk:Did you know#Rijksmonument using DYK hook "... that a Rijksmonument is a national monument of the Netherlands, and there are 55,000 of them?"). I dunno if a collective like wp:HSITES can be a DYK joint author, but I'd be happy to try to share DYK credit that way. Perhaps a better hook would mention one salient Rijksmonument and include a photo of it? Or perhaps the image of the Monumentenschildje that User:Ruigeroeland added could be worked in? doncram (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you really going to create a List of Rijksmonuments? There's the Dutch list to give you a start I suppose. If you want to go for a double hook, I've got a Friesland windmill article almost ready to go. The mill is a Rijksmonument. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) I've created the list myself. It will need expansion but most historic buildings in the Netherlands that have articles will be Rijksmonuments. Just a case of confirming it and adding to the list. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Great start of a list. Needs to be moved to List of Rijksmonuments (Netherlands) or similar, now that Belgian counterparts have been pointed out. Am somewhat dismayed to read in the Rijksmonument (Netherlands) article now that the list of Rijksmonuments is not public. There is a Wikia wiki that sort of covers them, but not with enough information to be very helpful. How to move forward? Could we try to correspond with a government office to get a database download to work from. doncram (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
No need to move the list yet, it can easily be adapted to cover the Netherlands and Belgium to start with. If it grows too large then it can be split. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyhow, the DYK nomination is in trouble. I don't have a specific source that any one of the selected Rijksmonumenten is in fact a Rijksmonument. Here is a webpage which might be reporting on 100 new Rijksmonumenten, or it might not be. If anyone else can document that any specific places are Rijksmonuments, and swap them in, please do so. I am out of my depth, language-wise, and I think i am done. Up to someone else to save the DYK if they want to. Please add credit for urself, too, if u do. Hasta. doncram (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Lists of listed buildings/lists for Grade xx listed buildings
Hi everyone, there's currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Lists of listed buildings about the naming of lists of listed buildings. The main issue that having "list of..." at hte start – while consistent with other list articles – is repetitious and a bit clumsy. So it's been suggested to drop "list of..." from the title of articles about listed buildings. The folks over at WT:FLC say it would be preferable if consensus can be reached here so that it doesn't appear that they're dictating terms. It would mostly effect UK articles, although it would bring them in line with US lists of NHRPs. Any comments? Nev1 (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
(also posted at WT:FLC) I'd be against the removal of "List of" from these articles. If implemented it could also be said to be applicable to over 100 "List of windmills in xxxx" articles. With "List of" in the title, it is clear to a prospective reader that they will be viewing a list. Without "List of", a reader could assume that the article is a general article related to the title of the article, and not a list. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Lists of windmills wouldn't be affected. The issue here is the repetition of the word "list" for articles about listed buildings. Considering that each list should have a lead explaining listed buildings and summarising the table, I don't see any harm in reader not being explicitly told it's a list. Nev1 (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
"List of listed..." is rather clumsy and certainly looks odd to the reader. And with a good lead, an additional article would hardly be necessary in these cases. And it's consistent with the comparable lists produced for USA. I'm for it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
So the proposal would be to remove "List of" from titles like List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area), but not to remove it from "List of windmills in ...", "List of Scheduled Monuments in..." and other lists of historic sites where there is not repetition of the word list. I am for that. In the now-over-2,000 U.S. NRHP lists, the naming convention used is "National Register of Historic Places listings in ...", which replaced "List of Registered Historic Places in ..." about a year ago. I could not possibly stand to re-read all the discussion that went into the NRHP lists renaming, as it turned out people had very strong opinions, so I am a bit surprised this proposal is getting few comments. If so, then anyhow, an easy consensus reached! :) doncram (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said on the FL discussion page I'm in favour of removing "List of" where the title has "Listed building" because it's clumsy and difficult to read.— Rodtalk07:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for coming late to this. I am happy to support a change to drop "List of" for listed buildings lists. I don't have a strong opinion either way, so matching the naming convention of the NRHP lists sounds like a good rationale. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)07:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been asked to comment as I'm the only objector. If the consensus is to change "List of listed buildings in..." to "Listed buildings in..." then I'll not stand in your way, on the understanding that it only applies to these lists. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Well it should cover "List of Grade X listed buildings in ___" also; those should similarly be moved to "Grade X listed buildings in ___". doncram (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sorry if I didn't make that clear on Mjroots talk page when I asked if he had any further comments. If there are no objections, I can start making the moves tomorrow. Nev1 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
As a member of WP:NRHP, I think that it makes sense — if "List of National Register of Historic Places listings in X" is awkward, "List of listed buildings" is even more awkward. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The bot works on the basis of project banners on the talk page & the banner for this project wasn't included (it is now) and therefore each time it runs it overwrites manual editing of the alerts page. Now the project banner is included it should show up in 24 hrs or so.— Rodtalk10:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Looking at a picture of St John's Church Ealing, I'm wondering if it's a listed building, but I couldn't find a list of Grade II or Grade II* buildings in London. Could someone check and add the listing information if it's listed? I should note that this issue came up because I was transferring the infobox image to Commons; if it's listed, I'd appreciate it if someone added listed building categories to the image as well. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Fram recently commented elsewhere that Rijksmonuments are just for the Netherlands, and Rijksmonument (Belgium) will probably be deleted soon. Fram prefers "an English title for an article on the Belgian situation, because using either the French or the Dutch term will **** off the other half of the population (well, some of them at least). We could also divide it into three articles, since the designation is a community matter anyway (Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia), but then you still have a naming problem with the Brussels part :-) I've started a [[user sandbox list of all articles on Belgian monuments, but a more general article on the monuments nad landscapes of Belgium is of course welcome."
I note, by the way, that the article for one Belgian monument, Affligem Abbey, uses Public Domain text fro the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. I wonder if that is a good resource for historic sites articles in other countries, too, because it is on-line, although I'd prefer it to be cited from just like any copyrighted source, except maybe with longer quotes since copyright fair use limitations don't apply for PD.
There's an ongoing AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles J. Fisher about a historian who has accumulated 100 successful listings of Los Angeles local historical sites. I don't know where the line should be drawn on notability of authors like this, but certainly some prolific historic site nominators whose name appears again and again in nomination forms (in particular I keep encountering some U.S. NRHP-nominators, and likewise some HABS / HAER photographers, who I think should be wikipedia-notable). Any thoughts? doncram (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on adding information regarding the New Jersey Register of Historic Places to a number of articles, and was using the example from the NRHP template for making the additions. Another editor pointed out this project to me, and I now see that I have accidentally co-opted the color scheme dedicated to California historic sites in my additions. The color used by the California indicators in the infobox (#ffc94b) is very close to the color used by New Jersey WikiProject and the background color of the NJ state flag (#ffc125). How are the colors determined for use in the NHRP and historic site infoboxes? I would like to be able to follow whatever standard should be applied before continuing this work, and creating more work that will need to be redone. Jim MillerSee me | Touch me14:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Infoboxes
The infobox has been removed from Montacute House with the edit summary "Ridiculous that a pointless info box listing anachronisms such as "client" and "design team" forces the important plan almost off the page", would anyone with thoughts on the use of infoboxes for historic buildings like to contribute to the debate on the Talk page?— Rodtalk23:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
