 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The article divides Puerto Rico by counties. This kind of division is not used in Puerto Rico. Perhaps this is the grouping made by the Register? It makes no sense. Perhaps we can divide the list by Senatorial district: San Juan, Bayamón, Arecibo, Mayaguez, Ponce, Guayama, Humacao and Carolina? Smylere Snape 21:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it seems the current division is by the 78 Municipalities of Puerto Rico. But, I agree that grouping those into the 8 senatorial districts could be good to do.
- Hmm, I find the definitions of the 8 districts in the Puerto Rico constitution PDF document linked from top of the Puerto Rico Senate webpage (and this is a direct link to the PDF ). But, it's not so simple, some of the municipalities are split across districts. doncram ( talk) 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Per Article III, Section 4, of the Constitution of Puerto Rico, the senatorial districts change after each decennial census. They would not be a good basis for dividing the list. Jonathunder ( talk) 22:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. :( By the way, i posted at
Talk:Senate of Puerto Rico requesting that 8 senate districts be defined better in
its article, rather than including links purportedly for each of the 8 districts (San Juan, Bayamón, Arecibo, Mayagüez-Aguadilla, Ponce, Guayama, Humacao, Carolina) but leading instead to articles on municipalities or cities having those names. Hmm, again. Is there any way to divide the island, if only just by municipalities in the East vs. in the West. That would help to split this NRHP list-article in two, as will be needed (more than 150 or so NRHPs in an NRHP list-article article, when "table-ized" like others in
List of RHPs, is too many). I don't know where to draw the line, would like to rely upon an objective partition / someone else's partition.
doncram (
talk) 22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should ask the Puerto Rico WikiProject to suggest the most appropriate way to group the listings. Jonathunder ( talk) 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. :( By the way, i posted at
Talk:Senate of Puerto Rico requesting that 8 senate districts be defined better in
its article, rather than including links purportedly for each of the 8 districts (San Juan, Bayamón, Arecibo, Mayagüez-Aguadilla, Ponce, Guayama, Humacao, Carolina) but leading instead to articles on municipalities or cities having those names. Hmm, again. Is there any way to divide the island, if only just by municipalities in the East vs. in the West. That would help to split this NRHP list-article in two, as will be needed (more than 150 or so NRHPs in an NRHP list-article article, when "table-ized" like others in
List of RHPs, is too many). I don't know where to draw the line, would like to rely upon an objective partition / someone else's partition.
doncram (
talk) 22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea. Posted at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico#help dividing PR into 2 or more geographical chunks, for NRHP list. Thanks.
doncram (
talk) 22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I did the same, but you beat me to it. ;-) Jonathunder ( talk) 22:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea. Posted at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico#help dividing PR into 2 or more geographical chunks, for NRHP list. Thanks.
doncram (
talk) 22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Municipalities of Puerto Rico is a good starting point. The senatorial district are only electoral divisions without any administrative function and people only refer to them when they are talking about senate politics. In my opinion, there is no geographical or objective way to divide the municipalities into two. If you have to divide the list, my suggestion is to keep it simple and list them in alphabetical order like the Municipalities article and Template:Puerto_Rico and divide the list where is convenient. -- J mundo 04:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. But, the consensus in dividing up other NRHP list-articles, such as List of RHPs in Baltimore, List of RHPs in NYC, and others, has been that we should divide geographically rather than alphabetically. Among other reasons, that way the use of the linked coordinates maps work well. I've put in coordinates for just a few sites here, but you can already see how the linked coordinates maps will work by clicking on the LiveSearch map link towards the top right of the article. Perhaps i could just define, arbitrarily but perhaps objectively enough, eastern vs. western municipalities as being those whose centers are to the east vs. west of the peak of Cerro de Punta. That is a near-central landmark point that I am just picking out of some maps of Puerto Rico. doncram ( talk) 05:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Or, perhaps better, use the central east-west
Cordillera Central dividing range, to split between northern vs. southern sections. That seems more consistent with
Geography of Puerto Rico.
doncram (
talk) 06:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, we can talk about the towns that are located in the Central Mountain range, the towns located in the south coast, eastern coast and north coast. The articles of each municipality will tell you in what geographical section is located. For example Comerío, Puerto Rico is "located in the center-eastern region of island." Hope this help, -- J mundo 06:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Or, perhaps better, use the central east-west
Cordillera Central dividing range, to split between northern vs. southern sections. That seems more consistent with
Geography of Puerto Rico.
doncram (
talk) 06:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
At Talk:Las Cabañas Bridge, User:Jmundo explained his/her moving the Las Cabanas Bridge article to Las Cabañas Bridge, "because its the proper Spanish name" with supporting link [1]. I am fine with that: articles about places should be put at what is the most common name for the place. However, the NRHP name for the place should show as a bolded alternative name in the text of the article, and the NRHP infobox in the article should show the NRHP name ("Las Cabanas Bridge" with no "ñ" in this case). That's just to show how the place is in fact listed on the National Register. And, this list article of NRHP places should show the NRHP names (linking by pipelink or redirect to differently named articles in some cases), because it is an index of the NRHP names for places.
- I don't have a problem with the list using the NRHP name, but I suggest having a note in the lead to clarify that the name use is the one listed with NRHP unless you want users correcting the name. My concern is that the article about the place "should show as a bolded alternative name in the text of the article.", even with the obvious spelling error? Per
WP:PURMOS#NAME names "should be translated to English, whenever possible, immediately followed by their official Spanish name in italic." The problem is that the official Spanish name or the common name sometimes is not correct in the register. The article text should use the correct name established by reliable sources. In the NRHP infobox, I agree that the name listed in NRHP should be use. --
J
mundo 08:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good points. I added a note as you suggest to the lead. If there is an obvious spelling error that has been recorded for reporting to the National Register, then I would not show that, but rather use the corrected name. Las Cabanas Bridge is not an obvious spelling error, though, it simply is the National Register name for the place. Actually, i don't know if there exists any reliable source supporting "Las Cabañas Bridge" as being a name used by anyone. Perhaps any usage including the letter ñ would also use the Spanish word for "bridge", too. To be a bit bureaucratic: if a reliable source is not found for the current article name, it should eventually be moved back to the National Register name, which is documented. However, I do like how you used quote marks rather than bolding of the NRHP name in the Las Cabañas Bridge article as it is now written. Thanks! doncram ( talk) 10:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It is also possible that the National Register name recorded in the NRIS database is simply wrong, due to a typo at data entry. Specifically, User:Jmundo noted that the National Register "has some minor spelling errors with Spanish entries, for example Faro de Punta Higueros is listed in the register as Faro di Punta Higueros, using the Italian "of" instead of the Spanish "de". " That would appear to me to be a case where there is probably an error in the National Register database entry. I expect that the actual, detailed NRHP application (which is an extensive, careful document) could not have such an error. There are many other cases of NRIS typo errors, which I and others record at wp:NRIS info issues for reporting to the National Register. I am working through, in batches, reporting these to the National Register for them to make corrections, and that is working. Putting in error reports is important, because otherwise there are many sources, including several private websites mirroring public domain NRIS data (such as www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com ) which will continually be found to give the other name, causing future conflicts among wikipedia editors. I support making obvious corrections, if and only if those corrections are recorded as error corrections at wp:NRIS info issues, for eventual confirmation. doncram ( talk) 06:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Specifically, i see two "Punta di..." entries in NRIS searching at http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrloc1.htm: in Aguadilla, there is "Faro di Punta Borinquen", listed 1981-10-22, and in Arecibo there is "Faro di Punta Higuero", listed also on 1981-10-22. Both are reportedly covered in "Lighthouse System of Puerto Rico TR", a theme resource study document that was used to support multiple NRHP listings. I'd like a link to the online version of that document, to see how they are named there, to support making an error correction report. doncram ( talk) 07:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Jmundo for adding HABS coverage of Faro de Punta Borinquen to its article. That gives adequate support, for me, that the correct name is different than the NRIS-stated name for that one, and I assume then the other "di" example is also an NRIS typo. I added entries on these two apparent NRIS errors to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues#Puerto Rico for reporting to the National Register. And I added one other entry for an apparent placename typo. doncram ( talk) 16:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest to check this source from the office of the Governor of Puerto Rico to check for the correct spelling. The title of this document is "Properties of Puerto Rico included in the National Register". I wish I had the time to look into each property but for now the one that stands out is Pauteon Otero-Martinez the correct spelling is "Pateón" (the Spanish word for mausoleum). -- J mundo 03:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's a great source to cross-check all against! I find that it is a searchable document too, which makes it even more convenient to use. Also it provides both Spanish language and English language names for many sites, which could be used to put the opposite version into articles and to set up redirects. The National Register name is English in some cases, Spanish in others.
- About the Pauteon one, am I correct that you meant the correct spelling is "Panteón" with an N, as appears in that document? Also, I am wondering if "Church Inmaculada Conception of Vega Alta" is correct, whether it should be "Immaculada" with 2 M's rather than "Inmaculada". But it shows as Inmaculada in that document.
doncram (
talk) 07:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Doncram, I like how you included the NRHP name in the lighthouses articles and created redirects, these names are also the common name of the lighthouses. Good catch, the correct spelling is "panteón" with N. And yes, "Inmaculada" is the correct spelling 1. Its interesting and sometimes confusing how the names are listed. For example in "Church Inmaculada Conception of Vega Alta", they use the word "Church" but then it uses the Spanish word for Immaculate, and the changes back to English with "conception" instead of the Spanish word ("concepción" with C). But I suppose this is not a database error but a decision made by the translator(s) somewhere along the process. -- J mundo 20:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Trying to work with the list-article, i note that it was not organized by county (because there are no counties), nor was it clearly organized by municipality necessarily. I want to check and understand some location moves and other edits, including:
1. Two items were moved from the Guayama municipality section:
- Faro de Punta de la Tuna
- Faro de Punta de las Figuras
to another section.
- Punta Tuna Light is in Maunabo, Puerto Rico and Punta Figuras Light is located in Arroyo, Puerto Rico.-- J mundo 01:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
2. In this edit, two items were moved from "Isabela" municipality section:
- to the Vieques section, under town of Isabel Segunda.
- Isabela, Puerto Rico is a municipality and Isabel Segunda is the town center of the island municipality of Vieques, Puerto Rico.-- J mundo 01:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I see that Fuerte de Vieques is listed in Isabel II, apparently meaning Isabel Segunda. And i was puzzled at first not to find any "Mulas" entry in NRIS, but the lighthouse article is set up nicely with an NRHP refnum which leads me to find it as "Faro de Vieques". I'll revise this list-article and the lighthouse article to reflect the NRHP name, and set up a redirect from the NRHP name to the lighthouse article. doncram ( talk) 19:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Also in the same edit, an item, Isabel II was deleted. I can't find it in the NRIS system.
4. In this edit, item Mona Island was deleted with note that it is part of Mayaguez. But, there is a NRHP listing for " Isla de Mona" which NRIS describes as being near Mayaguez, PR. It is an NRHP listing and should be included in this table. I think it is different than the lighthouse, perhaps called Mona Island Light, which is on the island. doncram ( talk) 22:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the lighthouse, as " Faro de la Isla de la Mona", has NRHP refnum 81000689, while the "Isla de Mona" has NRHP refnum 93001398. They were listed in 1981 and 1993 respectively. I am revising the two articles and adding "Isla de Mona" into the Mayaguez section of this list-article. doncram ( talk) 22:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
5. There are a bunch of places in the Humacao section with Vieques indicated, and there is a separate Vieques section. I'll proceed with creating stub articles, but wonder which is the relevant municipality to organize these into. doncram ( talk) 19:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I started splitting the list into northern and southern sections, hoping to split by the line of the Cordillera Central mountain range, and to put Vieques with the north section since it is served by port on north, and so on. Many classification errors apparent, as lighthouses off the south coast were included in northern municipality of Arecibo. Will require fine-tuning to split out and assign places correctly.
I may want to define northern vs. southern by a latitude line, perhaps 18 degrees north 8 minutes or so, which is to be picked to run north of Mayaguez and south of Utuado, cutting mostly along the Cordillera. This will be somewhat arbitrary but very objective and explainable. No rush in defining exact line, will just move obvious ones to north vs. south and leave some to be decided later. doncram ( talk) 19:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that the best way to separate the articles is by tourist econimic regions:
- West side: Porta del Sol= http://portadelsol.com/default.aspx
- South side porta caribe= http://www.portacaribe.com/
- central
- north
- eastern
- san juan metro
http://www.puertorico.com/regions/
just an idea El Johnson ( talk) 22:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks so much! I see that the http://www.puertorico.com/regions/ provides a city-finder drop-down bar that assigns each municipality to each of the six regions, exactly as needed. PuertoRico.Com is just a private, tourist website, but this segmentation can still be used. It happens that I have proceeded already to split the big list of municipalities by my own determination of "south and west" municipalities vs. "north and east" municipalities. I decided the latitude line idea wouldn't work well, already. The south and west chunk i split off lines up pretty well already with the south and west segments defined by PuertoRico.Com. I'll revise further to exactly match up with PuertoRico.Com's definitions. And then split the remaining using PuertoRico.Com's definitions, too, perhaps to put central and north together, and to put San Juan metro + eastern together. Very happy. Thanks again! doncram ( talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Update: i have realigned the southern and western regions. The tourist region listing is working, I am following it except where it mixes in a couple non-municipalities ( Mercedita, which is a part of Ponce, and Caja de Muertos, which is an island that is also part of Ponce). doncram ( talk) 16:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
issues in division by region
The PuertoRico.Com site is not a perfect source. Some other departures:
- For the Eastern region, the tourist region it defines includes Las Croabas, Puerto Rico. That is a notable village within the Fajardo, Puerto Rico municipality, but is not a municipality itself.
- Also the tourist region puts Guayama in the Eastern region by error apparently, it is between others in the Southern region. Also it puts Maunabo, Puerto Rico in the East, while i put in south. It does put Arroyo, further east of both of these, in the South. doncram ( talk) 18:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
old division
For the record, the split i did before was to put NRHP listings in south and west municipalities:
*[[Adjuntas]]
* 2 Arroyo
* 3 Cayey
* 4 Coamo
* 5 Guánica
* 6 Guayama
* 7 Hormigueros
* 8 Jayuga
* 9 Juana Diaz
* 10 Maricao
* 11 Maunabo
* 12 Mayaguez
* 13 Ponce
* 14 Sabana Grande
* 15 Salinas
* 16 San German
* 17 Yauco
In North and east:
* 1 Aguadilla, Puerto Rico
* 2 Aibonito
* 3 Arecibo
* 4 Barranquitas
* 5 Bayamón
* 6 Cabo Rojo
* 7 Caguas
* 8 Canóvanas
* 9 Carolina
* 10 Ciales
* 11 Comerio
* 12 Corozal
* 13 Culebra
* 14 Dorado
* 15 Guaynabo
* 16 Humacao
* 17 Lares
* 18 Las Piedras
* 19 Loiza
* 20 Manati
* 21 Naguabo
* 22 Moca
* 23 Quebradillas
* 24 Rincon
* 25 San Juan
* 26 San Lorenzo
* 27 San Sebastián
* 28 Toa Baja
* 29 Utuado
* 30 Vega Alta
* 31 Vega Baja
* 32 Vieques
doncram ( talk) 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This compares tallies in the wikipedia tables for Puerto Rico municipalities, vs. NRHP's NRIS system as of May, 2009. Note, 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 NRIS, not wikipedia errors.
References
- ^ Plata Bridge spans into Bayamon and Naranjito municipalities, is listed in both (NR-NPS shows in just Bayamon "county").
lv reconciliation items
lvklock labels as in wikipedia lists but not in NRIS (But these, besides the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, are all in NRIS in some form, as demonstrated by their articles now all created using Elkman NRHP infoboxes based on an NRIS download. Maybe it needs to be identified which "county" NRIS lists them in? Ah, it appears these are ones that do not appear in NR.NPS, i.e. at http://www.nr.nps.gov , in any county )
- Coamo: Puente de las Calabazas, is in Elkman but not in NR.NPS
- Guanica: Yauco Battle Site, is in Elkman but not in NR.NPS
- Juana Diaz: Cueva Lucero, is in Elkman but not in NR.NPS
- Caguas: Primera Iglesia Bautista de Caguas (not Primera Iglesia Bautista se Caguas, is in Elkman but not in NR.NPS
- San Juan: Condado Vanderbilt Hotel (not Condada Vanderbilt Hotel), is in Elkman but not in NR.NPS
- San Juan: La Giralda (San Juan, Puerto Rico), is in Elkman but not in NR.NPS
- San Juan: Martin Pena Bridge, is in Elkman but not in NR.NPS
- Arecibo: National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center is not in Elkman or NR.NPS. Entry based on its announcement as a featured listing in the NRHP weekly announcements
- Naranjito: Plata Bridge, spans two municipalities but NRIS reports only in other county, not Naranjito
- Viequez: Faro de Vieques, is listed in Isabela
- Viequez: Fuerte de Vieques (not Fuerto de Vieques), is listed in Isabela
missing from wikipedia lists:
- San Juan: Zona Historica de San Juan (added to list-table by doncram)
San Juan: Luis Munoz Rivera Park (added to list-table by doncram)
both now added. Thanks!
date added is wrong:
Church San Juan Bautista y San Ramon Nonato of Juana Diaz (error in date by doncram, fixed by doncram)
reconciliation in overall totals
| Reconciliation | # | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| NR.NPS total | 281 | |
| less duplications (sites spanning counties) shown in NRIS, not accounted for in NRIS total | (0) | |
| plus NR-NPS not yet showing very recently announced NRHP sites | 0 | |
| less NR-NPS misidentifications of sites as NRHP | (0) | |
| plus NR-NPS omitting to recognize other NRHP sites (including duplications) | 9 | 7 that are in Elkman but not in NPSL
And 1 for
National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center was reported in weekly announcements as a featured listing, listed 9/23/2008 |
| less duplications among those omissions | (1) | Plata Bridge |
| Subtotal | 289 | |
| less Wikipedia total | 289 | |
| yet to be identified, net | 0 |
Now that all 289 NRHP listings are completely listed, it would be good to check all for how names appear. I've put, into each of the three list-articles, a note: "Names of places given are as appear in the National Register, reflecting name as given in NRHP application at the date of listing. Note, the National Register name system does not accommodate Spanish á, ñ and other letters." So currently the list is pretty much what is "official" according to the NRIS system, but that is just a database that has its limitations. The document about NRHP place names from Puerto Rico, mentioned in another discussion above, can be viewed as providing better official names. It could be good to cross check all names against that. And note changes here and/or at wp:NRIS info issues. doncram ( talk) 21:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- As expected, the main issues with the current revision are the accents. San Germán, Rincón, Mayagüez (umlaut) and Manatí are missing them. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- And so are Juana Díaz, Comerío and Loíza. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I notice rearrangement by User:Mercy11 to reorganize into regions a different way. What is better about this partition, though? It's now stated that this is by the "official Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's Learn about Puerto Rico - Regions,[1] and it is presented in five groupings". But the link is to a tourism .COM site, like the previous partition was based on. I don't see where the tourism site is identified as being more official than any other. Mercy11, can you comment please? doncram ( talk) 05:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Don, the http://www.gotopuertorico.com site is the official website of the Puerto Rico Tourism Company, the official corporation of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to foster tourism in the island. I know a quick glance at the web address in the article will discover it does contain the "tourism" just before ".com" and this might mislead some people digging in. However, the ".COM" you are pointing out is the url, the "file structure" if you will, of the website, and not the website name itself. So no, this site is not just another commercial tourism website. (BTW, if you want to "see where the tourism site is identified as being more official than any other" site, check out the bottom of their page at http://www.gotopuertorico.com/ .) Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 16:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying (and thanks for your other work recently on this system of lists). The wikipedia article Public corporations of the Government of Puerto Rico is interesting and I see it includes this company in its list, but it is an unsourced entry. The wikipedia article does not establish that the company belongs on that list, or that it is more official than other tourism companies. I certainly had already reviewed their webpage and considered in particular the bottom, where it is stated "Copyright © 2009 Puerto Rico Tourism Company . All rights reserved. Site Map PRTC La Princesa Bldg. #2 Paseo La Princesa Old San Juan, P.R. 00902 Approved by PR Elections Commission # CEE-SA-08-9638 ". That does not suffice to show that it is an official company either: it suggests that something about the webpage was approved by an Elections Commission. I don't know what the Elections Commission has to do with anything about webpages though. But how is this different than saying that any U.S. pharmaceutical company is part of the U.S. government because its products are U.S. FDA-approved, or saying that that any company which hires people in the U.S. is part of the government because their personnel policy stated in their ads is that they are U.S. Equal Opportunity-Commission compliant. Note, I am not objecting to using the different system of regions that this website provides. That seems okay to me, even if this tourism company is not more official than the other one whose regions I had used. There is an issue in how to describe why this system of regions is used, and whether or not it is official in some sense. doncram ( talk) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I further see that there is a Compania de Turismo included in Government of Puerto Rico Organizational chart (Spanish) linked from the public corporations article. I suppose that is this one? I think the Tourism company article needs some improvement and the public corporations article needs some clarifying and reference improvements, too. I am still a bit confused about use of the term public corporations, which in other context applies to all firms which are publicly traded on any U.S. stock exchange, and which have nothing to do with the U.S. government except for being regulated and taxed by it. doncram ( talk) 17:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are many black-and-white photos which have been uploaded which are NOT public domain, but rather appear to be copyright violations. While many U.S. government photos of lighthouses and of buildings are public domain, such as all covered in the Historic American Buildings Survey or the Historic American Engineering Record, there are many photos NOT in the public domain. In particular, there are photos of most NRHP-listed places included with their NRHP applications, and the documents and photos are accessible at the National Park Service's NPS Focus system. BUT, for the most part these ones are NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN, and it is a copyright violation to upload and use them. I've given some notice about that at one recent uploader's Talk page. However, everyone interested in NRHP places in Puerto Rico needs to be aware of the potential problem. I'll watch here to see if there might be any questions. -- doncram ( talk) 14:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- The issue was all resolved; a bunch of photos became acceptable by OTRS submission of copyright allowance, and others were deleted i think, all a very long time ago. -- do ncr am 03:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, would it be possible to bring the coverage up to U.S. nation-wide average of 50.3%, for percent of NRHP articles completed. See "NRHP PROGRESS". -- do ncr am 03:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- List-Class Puerto Rico articles
- Mid-importance Puerto Rico articles
- List-Class Puerto Rico articles of Mid-importance
- List-Class Caribbean articles
- Low-importance Caribbean articles
- WikiProject Caribbean articles
- List-Class National Register of Historic Places articles
- High-importance National Register of Historic Places articles
- List-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of High-importance