This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States: West Virginia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as High-importance). National Register of Historic Places High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

And some aren't? Just curious. -- Ebyabe 18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Never mind. -- Ebyabe 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I noticed that several of the sites I have listed on List of historic sites in Ohio County, West Virginia were removed from your page. Were these sites removed from the NRHP? Mphamilton 05:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Which ones? -- Ebyabe 13:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Namely residences located outside of Wheeling in Triadelphia, Valley Grove, and Mount Echo. Mphamilton 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I suggest that the county list-articles of counties near to one another be merged into regional groupings, so that readers and editors can review the nearby NRHP listings together. The linked "map of all coordinates" will then show one coherent map for the region.

I don't care about which specific partition of the state is used, but here's how one partition would work: Using MagazineUSA.com's partition, there would be nine groupings:

1. Eastern Panhandle - 209 NRHPs in 3 counties
2. Hatfield-McCoy Mountains - 22 NRHPs in 5 counties
3. Metro Valley - 139 NRHPs in 4 counties
4. Mid-Ohio Valley - 75 NRHPs in 7 counties
5. Mountain Lakes - 60 NRHPs in 7 counties
6. Mountaineer Country - 133 in 7 counties
7. New River/Greenbrier Valley - 147 in 8
8. Northern Panhandle - 107 in 6
9. Potomac Highlands - 148 in 8

All nine would be reasonable sized groupings, page-size-wise. The system would work exactly the same, just when one selected a given county from the list one would be brought to that county's list-table amidst a regional page, and the "map of all coordinates" would work well showing a larger, coherent area instead of showing just one county's NRHP locations.

Here's how the state-wide list-article table would appear, more or less, with a sortable column for "region":

Again I am open for there being a different partition, but some grouping, any grouping would be a help. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

P.S. I revise the table in the list-article to show these regions, at least for now. It is just informational so far, it does not change where any links go to. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I will bet beer money that this would be very similiar to the conversations on Texas. I really again would like to make clear, most of the people who reside in the state will differ on which county goes in which region. USA Magazine would not be my preferred source, can we get something like the WV Cultural and History center as a source? Why confuse the issue on a state with 55 counties? Coal town guy talk 13:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The point is to improve reader and editor experience by using regions, which is what is done elsewhere, e.g. by our breaking apart cities of Baltimore, St. Louis, Boston, Denver, others by geographic areas, rather than dividing them alphabetically. It is a pretty simple principle, to use meaningful geographic areas. It is more urgent to use regions to group Texas' 254 counties than here, because the readers are getting a shittier experience there currently, but perhaps it is helpful here too, and perhaps easier here to see how regions will work.

Okay, browsing at WV Cultural whatever, I find in its report on ethnic communities. "In this report, we have organized the communities under eight geographic headings, which are the tourism regions recognized by the West Virginia Division of Tourism. The eight regions are the Northern Panhandle, the Eastern Panhandle, the Potomac Highlands, Mountaineer Country, the Mountain Lakes region, the New River/Greenbrier region, the Metro Valley, and the Mid-Ohio Valley." That sounds like it nearly matches up to the first try above, using all the same names besides dropping "Hatfield-McCoy". Professionals providing info about the state find it necessary/helpful to break it into regions, right. -- Doncram ( talk) 13:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes the WV Cultural whatever is probably the only legit source of historic data left in the state...UNLESS you happen to hang out at WVU and their archives..The Hatfield-McCoy "region" is a marketing tool and a somewhat derisive term....UNLESS its OK by you to propagate the idiom of dumb hicks and family feuds...It does sell T shirts. Just a thought, some people dont like that term. Naming a region in that manner could cause alot of potential editors to say, no Coal town guy talk 14:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Okay, that works fine, its eight regions split NRHPs as:

1. Eastern Panhandle - 209 NRHPs in 3 counties
2. Metro Valley - 161 NRHPs in 9 counties
3. Mid-Ohio Valley - 75 NRHPs in 7 counties
4. Mountain Lakes - 60 NRHPs in 7 counties
5. Mountaineer Country - 133 in 7 counties
6. New River/Greenbrier Valley - 147 in 8
7. Northern Panhandle - 107 in 6
8. Potomac Highlands - 148 in 8

I note there is some text characterizing population and other characteristics (ethnicities and more) of each of the regions, in the WV report, which could be used a bit in brief intros about the regions. -- Doncram ( talk) 14:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Again this will help coverage most for the remoter, more isolated listings. E.g. the "Mountain Lakes" area, characterized by the WV Dept of Arts, Culture and History as "historically perhaps the most isolated region in the state." ( [1]) It goes on to say

This area proportionally has the smallest population. The larger communities in the area include Weston (Lewis County), Buckhannon (Upshur County), Glenville (Gilmer County) and Summersville (Nicholas County). Nicholas and Clay counties have been important coal counties and were home at one time to several ethnically diverse coal towns. Towns like Widen, Clay County, had incredibly diverse communities during their heyday as coal towns. There have also been major lumbering operations in the region. Throughout the Mountain Lakes, English, Irish, and German ancestry are common. To a lesser extent, Scots-Irish, Italian, Dutch, Scottish, and French roots are also present. Historically, Scots-Irish and German farm culture had a major impact in the area. These older ancestral roots were major influences in the early history of the state, however there are currently few distinct regional ethnic communities in the counties in the Mountain Lakes region. Lewis County was an important rural home for West Virginia Catholics, mostly of Irish and German ancestry, and there are prominent reminders of those communities in the area. Most activities to be found in this area reflect the general population, and many activities have an Appalachian emphasis, although there are a few that also have an ethnic flavor, including the Irish Spring Festival.

I am curious whether the NRHP listings in that area reflect that characterization. And to see what reader experience can be like with the linked "map of all coordinates". Trying now with Draft:National Register of Historic Places listings in Mountain Lakes region, West Virginia. -- Doncram ( talk) 14:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

However users will be able to go to county specific lists still, right? The current image map is for counties Coal town guy talk 14:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

OK I looked at your draft, I am utterly lost. Sorry. And a new user wou7ld also be utterly lost. I have to page down, find a county as it is listed in a region I may or may not know? UH NO Coal town guy talk 14:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Um, it is a work in progress, quite literally. It probably didn't have all the counties merged into it yet when u went to it, so it would have been a bad experience if u were looking for one of the missing ones. And it definitely didn't even have a TOC in it yet when you wrote that, i just added one, and it can/will otherwise be improved. But, majorly, if you clicked on a given county in the state-wide list-article, say Webster County, you would get brought directly to its county table, i.e. to Draft:National Register of Historic Places listings in Mountain Lakes region, West Virginia#Webster County. No more confusing than being brought to a county table amidst a bunch of other counties scattered around the state. Here the counties form a coherent region, and you will be pleasantly surprised when you click on the map of all coordinates.

Okay right now there are two Table of Contents (TOC) bars in the draft, one listing all 55 counties and one listing just the seven in this page. There will eventually only be one, basically the 55 one, but with bold or regular font indicating the ones on this page, and with regular or italic font indicating the ones on a different page. This is like similar use of fonts in List of RHPs in MN and other state-wide list-articles where smaller counties are grouped below and only bigger counties are split out. -- Doncram ( talk) 15:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Okay I also refined the 55 county TOC bar that way, i.e. showing bold for the 7 counties and italics for the others. -- Doncram ( talk) 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Hmm, one thing I notice in the map, is that the NRHP listings are located along the squiggly lines, i.e. the rivers/creeks. Also I notice the first draft does not reflect any characterisation of WV irish and german catholics, like the WV writeup suggests; this may be because there are no descriptions for almost all of the sites. Grouped together this way, I or other editors might be motivated to develop some descriptions, because I would be interested in showing the relationships in the region. -- Doncram ( talk) 15:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

"Catholic" does not appear once in any article title. Upon going to its article, though, i see St. Bernard Church and Cemetery is in fact about a Roman Catholic church serving an Irish immigrant area. I really would be motivated to develop some short description for it in the region article, tieing it to the WV Dept of Arts Culture and History-asserted theme of the region. This reminds me of List of NHLs in NY which I worked on long ago, where there were discernable themes covered in the intro corresponding to the contents/descriptions below. -- Doncram ( talk) 15:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

MUCH better as to organization. Coal town guy talk 16:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Okay, good. You probably did see a draft which was a mess. -- Doncram ( talk) 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

And the Michael Smith House is an 1848-built log home, part of a German immigrant community. The German and Scots-Irish catholic heritage could be mentioned in an intro discussion, linking or not to some of the examples below which would mention those key words in their descriptions. Along with mention that this heritage may be reflected in contributing resources in historic district articles too. (Maybe one takeaway, which I wouldn't explicitly state unless supported by a source, would be that there is some but not very much legacy/artifacts of this heritage remaining, because perhaps there is more NRHP listing coverage of other odd historical things in the area, so be it.) I am certainly not ever interested in developing descriptions or regional theme coverage in sometimes-tiny separate county list-articles, nor does it make sense for anyone else to do so. I would be very happy to spend some time developing similar thematic discussion, and corresponding individual NRHP site descriptions, in all eight region list-articles, if/when this region organization can be implemented in mainspace. -- Doncram ( talk) 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

It is a big deal when speaking to state origins.. Morgan Morgan had been reported to be the states first settler, BUT, NOT SO. It turns out a germanic lutheran congregagtion was there before him Coal town guy talk 19:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Okay, good. I am certainly glad to work out a way forward for more coherent discussion of West Virginia's historic sites, which I think can be done, a bit, using regional list-articles and the WV Arts, Culture & History sources, plus eventually perhaps other sources that will emerge. With this prospect, and with the organization clarified, User:Coal town guy, would you now support the reorganization of the WV NRHP lists now, this way? Or is there anything else you'd like to get resolved? Perhaps it is necessary to discuss this at wt:NRHP or to involve more participation here, before proceeding. But it would be nice to have a small consensus, of two, here, first. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

IF you can state clearly that a user would be taken directly to the targeted county list, yes, and you did so [ [2]] rather well. Most users I have met who edit WV or KY or VA or OH or TN want to be able to easily find the county. Can you guarantee that for every county? Coal town guy (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, absolutely, including for readers clicking on a county in the clickable map. :) Good. -- Doncram ( talk) 18:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I've given notice at wt:NRHP asserting that we have somewhat of a consensus here, and calling for broader consideration, before going ahead with implementing the above. I paused for a while to let the Texas regions discussions conclude, which I think they have done, and to allow each of us to think about the 8-regions approach for a bit; i think it is a good approach. -- Doncram ( talk) 21:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I have the same issue with this that I did with the Texas listings; nobody outside of the tourism industry has heard of half of these regions. I still don't see why leaving the county lists as they are is an issue, especially with a state like WV that has fewer counties and more listings per county than TX. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 03:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Okay, well you are free to ignore the existence of the groupings, and navigate from National Register of Historic Places listings in West Virginia by county alone. You can ignore the sortable column there (which has been in place for a few weeks) that allows you to see which counties make up which region. You can ignore a clickable map which makes it obvious (after such a map gets created, there isn't one yet). And yet, after you go to any county's table, you can still benefit from linked "map of all coordinates" showing all the NRHPs in the region, instead of erroneously suggesting gaps of coverage (if a merger of just the smallest counties was done), or instead of showing nothing or very little at all, for the county "lists" that have just one or two or three listings. You may not be embarrassed to have such "lists". And again as for Texas, no professional presentation about tourism or economic development or anything else across the state is done without using regional groupings. For WV, please feel free to consult how guidebooks and reports and everything are organized in fact. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

User:TheCatalyst31, obviously I am kind of invested and want to proceed, but I do also believe it is better to hear differences of opinion and hopefully work out better solutions. Like I think happened recently in Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Harris County#Split discussion, and I think happened above, where User:Coal town guy and I evolved along to a better proposal. Thank you for commenting, really, and I'm sorry if I come across overly strong.

Please do google search on "regions of west virginia" and I think you will see repeated use of this framework of 8 regions though. I happen to think using tourist regions is fine, especially when they are sort of official as here and as was the case for grouping Puerto Rico's NRHPs. Here they are also used by the state SHPO basicly, i.e. the official WV department covering history stuff, more substantially than the corresponding Texas department used the driving tour regions there. Please do browse around.

Also, I just now noticed (from doing that google search) that Wikipedia already organizes some info by these eight regions: there exist

• Category:Eastern Panhandle geography stubs‎ (128 P)
• Category:Metro Valley geography stubs‎ (4 C, 186 P)
• Category:Mid-Ohio Valley, West Virginia geography stubs‎ (2 C, 211 P)
• Category:Mountain Lakes, West Virginia geography stubs‎ (1 C, 284 P)
• Category:Mountaineer Country geography stubs‎ (3 C, 161 P)
• Category:New River Greenbrier geography stubs‎ (7 C, 50 P)
• Category:Northern Panhandle geography stubs‎ (204 P)
• Category:Potomac Highlands geography stubs‎ (3 C, 217 P)

because it was obviously enough a good idea to use those regions, in 2008 when the categories were set up by User:Nyttend, and ever since. -- Doncram ( talk) 01:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/January 2008#West Virginia geography stubs discussion, which pointed to WV DOT transportation region maps. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

And I see each of those categories link to an article on the region. In case of Mountaineer County, it links to North Central West Virginia, with "(sometimes known as "Mountaineer Country")". I would be happy to use "North Central West Virginia" as name for that region, if others prefer. We would still be able to use the WV art, culture, history department's work characterizing the ethnicities and history of the region. There are some discrepancies between the "West Virginia Counties for Stubs" map vs. the maps shown in the region articles, e.g. for Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia, however, which I assume we could resolve. -- Doncram ( talk) 02:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I still don't see a compelling reason to do things differently from the other states, nor am I convinced that these are broadly used categories. Contrary to what you said above, the stub categories don't link to articles for the most part, and several of those regions don't seem to have articles at all. Stub categories are only used by editors, so we don't have to worry as much about the general public understanding what the regions are. A couple of the names are confusing; "Mountain Lakes" doesn't mean a ton in a state that has mountains everywhere, and "New River/Greenbrier Valley" awkwardly mashes two separate rivers together (and includes a few counties that aren't on either river, like McDowell and Wyoming). Counties are well-defined, easy to understand, and consistent with how the NPS organizes its listings, and I'm still not sure why regions would be preferable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 01:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Oppose regionalization. Moving to regions doesn't seem to offer a lot of benefit and seems likely to cause confusion. If people want to see what counties are near each other, they can reference the county map. Bitmapped ( talk) 01:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply

"Regions" must be agreed upon entities. As they are defined, and implemented, I cant see any benefit to anyone except a small group of editors, and that is not good enough. I can promise that most of the people I meet while doing photography in WV have zero idea of agreement on this concept. I oppose as well. IF there is a way to implement Regions, that is clear and agreed upon and makes sense, sure, why not. BUT NOW, no. Coal town guy (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply