This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||
|
I notice at http://www.nebraskahistory.org/histpres/nebraska/index.htm that the state of Nebraska and/or its historical preservation people divide the state up by regions consisting of groups of counties. Could we follow that grouping, and divide up this big list in that way? This could involve re-merging back into region lists, some individual counties that may have been further split out. It would involve reducing down this main page into functioning more as an index. The main index table here would group the counties differently (by region) but be sortable by county. There has been movement in other states, such as for Alaska, to rearrange NRHP list-articles by region, but finding an appropriate grouping of counties is sometimes hard. Here, the state or its historic preservation people provide a ready-made grouping. What does anyone else think about this? -- doncram ( talk) 17:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the large number of small counties, I think the division by regions as provided by the state is an excellent idea. If you separate out Lincoln and Douglas Counties (home respectively to Omaha and Lincoln, and each with more than 90 listings) and divide by the described regions, you end up with lists varying in size from 29 to 138, which fix the template inclusion problem and provide reasonable geomapping sets. I would construct a table in this list similar to those used for cities whose lists are broken up, and merge/redirect all of the smaller separated county lists. I think that a clickable region map could also be made up. Magic ♪piano 21:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I think I'm missing something fundamental about the NRHP. This list, which claims to be complete, currently shows 7 places in Kearney County, but when I search on the NRHP web site, I find 20 places listed in Kearney County. Is there some reason that the remaining 13 places are left off of this list? I assume that there is some aspect of what is listed and what is not that I am missing.
The reason I ask is that I was brought here by the page for the Frank,_George_W.,_House, which is not listed on this page but which appears to be a legitimate NRHP listing. Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm planning to remove the address-restricted graphic from these tables. This will keep counties from showing up on the color-coded maps at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress as fully illustrated, when in fact there are AR sites with no illustrations.
I am trying to get illustrations for all of the NRHP sites in Nebraska, AR or not. Some are easy: there's no reason why Dowse Sod House in Custer County should be AR, since it's open as a museum, promoted as a tourist destination, and shown in at least two editions of Delorme's Nebraska road atlas. Others are better concealed, but can still be found and photographed. Still others can't or shouldn't be photographed themselves, but photos can be taken and/or found to illustrate them—for instance, nearby historical markers, or artifacts recovered from archaeological sites.
I'd like the Progress site to provide an accurate representation of what's done and what needs doing in Nebraska. Since I understand that future updates to the site may count AR graphics as illustrations, it appears that it'll be necessary to remove the graphics. Ammodramus ( talk) 00:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Would it be of benefit to future updaters to have a notice that only appears in the edit phase such as the following "When updating this article make certain to also change, when appropriate, the introduction total and the table of count by county." (particularly for those individual county articles, so that people are aware that particular sections are not automatically changed when the tables contents are changed. Also, the number of designated sites in the intro differs from the by county count. Could someone in the know resolve that? LimeyCinema1960 ( talk) 23:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)