From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template is part of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject.

Humpback Covered Bridge
(U.S. National Register of Historic Places)
The Humpback Covered Bridge is the last remaining bridge of its type in the U.S.
Location:	Alleghany County, Virginia, USA
Nearest city:	Covington, Virginia
Coordinates:	37°48′02″N, 80°02′84″W
Built/Founded:	1810's
Added to NRHP:	October 1, 1969
Reference #:	69000219
Governing body:	Virginia Department of Transportation

[edit] Usage

[edit] Template code

To get started, you can simply copy and paste this blank definition into the top of the article, and fill in the data.

<!-- The following few lines create the "Photo Infobox" template.
     Please scroll down to edit the main content of the article. -->

{{Infobox nrhp
  | name =
  | nrhp_type = 
  | image = 
  | caption = 
  | location = 
  | nearest_city = 
  | lat_degrees = 
  | lat_minutes = 
  | lat_seconds = 
  | lat_direction = 
  | long_degrees = 
  | long_minutes = 
  | long_seconds = 
  | long_direction = 
  | area =
  | built =
  | architect =
  | architecture = 
  | added = 
  | visitation_num = 
  | visitation_year = 
  | refnum = 
  | mpsub = 
  | governing_body = 
}}

<!-- Copy the following lines to create the "Map Infobox" template. -->

{{Infobox nrhp
  | name = 
  | nrhp_type = 
  | image = US_Locator_Blank.svg
  | caption = 
  | locator_x = 
  | locator_y = 
  | location = 
  | nearest_city = 
  | lat_degrees = 
  | lat_minutes = 
  | lat_seconds = 
  | lat_direction = 
  | long_degrees = 
  | long_minutes = 
  | long_seconds = 
  | long_direction = 
  | area =
  | built =
  | architect =
  | architecture = 
  | added = 
  | visitation_num = 
  | visitation_year = 
  | refnum = 
  | mpsub = 
  | governing_body =  
}}

<!-- End Infobox template table -->

[edit] Instructions

• Each group of items above is optional.

• General
  • nrhp_type - this creates a sub-banner, defaulting to National Register of Historic Places. Other options include:
    • nhl - for National Historic Landmarks
    • hd - for Registered Historic Districts
    • nhld - for National Historic Landmark Districts
  • image
    • The preferred image is a good, clear one of the Place discussed in the article. However, when such is not available, a map (as in the first entry) should be used.
  • caption - optional, but a caption will not be shown if there is no image.
  • locator_x/locator_y
    • these fields are to be used in conjunction with the map
    • When replacing the map with an image, make sure to eliminate any pre-existing locator dot by making locator_x and locator_y blank
  • location/nearest_city
    • If the Place is in a city/town, enter it and the state in this field.

      (e.g., [[Orlando, Florida|Orlando]], [[Florida]])
      

      The "Nearest city" field may then be left blank.
    • If the Place is not in a city/town, enter the county and state in the "Location" field.

      (e.g., [[Citrus County, Florida|Citrus County]], [[Florida]])
      

      Then fill in the "Nearest city" field as appropriate.
  • lat/long
    • If you have only degrees and minutes, set the seconds to "0".
  • area - primarily for use with national parks, historic districts, and the like
  • built - when the site was constructed (specific date or approximate year/century/millenium, as appropriate), discovered, or first inhabited/used
  • architect - the name(s) of the architects or designers of the building(s) or structure(s)
  • architecture - the style of architecture (see Category:Architectural styles for common styles)
  • added - when the site was added to the National Register
  • visitation_num & visitation_year - primarily for use with national parks and/or when such information is available
  • refnum - the reference number assigned by the National Register
  • mpsub - if part of a Multiple Property Submission, the title of that listing should be included here
  • governing_body - the specific federal/state/local agency or organization that administers the site (very optional, as it is often difficult to determine this; if unsure, please leave blank)

• Wiki links [[]] are fine in any of the Infobox fields except coordinates.

Please spend some time at the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject article and its talk page for standards on presenting names and other data.

[edit] Finding Coordinates for the Locator Dot

There is a simple template tool named {{Locator grid}} which you can use to help with pinpointing the x and y coordinates for a locator dot. If you're using a popular locator map, you can test with the list of examples already included in the usage and instructions page

[edit] Under the Hood

[edit] Sub-Templates

This template calls the following sub-templates:

• {{Superimpose}} (talk) provides the ability to overlay the locator dot on the base image.
• {{Coor_dms}} (talk) formats the coordinates and makes the link to other mapping resources.

[edit] Optional Fields

Most fields are optional because they use m:ParserFunctions, which allows fields to be hidden if they do not have a value or shown if they do have a value.

[edit] Examples

The following wikicode creates the Photo Infobox, when a picture is available:

Hotel Thomas
(U.S. National Register of Historic Places)
Western entrance to the Thomas Center
Location:	Alachua County, Florida, USA
Nearest city:	Gainesville, Florida
Built/Founded:	1910
Added to NRHP:	July 16, 1973
Governing body:	City of Gainesville

{{Infobox nrhp
  | name = Hotel Thomas
  | nrhp_type = 
  | image = thomas-center-gville04.jpg
  | caption = Western entrance to the Thomas Center
  | location = [[Alachua County, Florida]], [[United States|USA]]
  | nearest_city = [[Gainesville, Florida]]
  | lat_degrees = 
  | lat_minutes = 
  | lat_seconds = 
  | lat_direction = 
  | long_degrees = 
  | long_minutes = 
  | long_seconds = 
  | long_direction = 
  | area = 
  | built = [[1910]]
  | added = [[July 16]], [[1973]]
  | visitation_num = 
  | visitation_year = 
  | refnum = 
  | mpsub = 
  | governing_body = City of Gainesville
}}

The wikicode below creates the Map Infobox to the right:

City of Alachua Downtown Historic District
(U.S. Registered Historic District)
Location:	Alachua County, Florida, USA
Nearest city:	Alachua, Florida
Added to NRHP:	July 14, 2000

{{Infobox nrhp
  | name = City of Alachua Downtown Historic District
  | nrhp_type = hd
  | image = US_Locator_Blank.svg
  | caption = 
  | locator_x = 228
  | locator_y = 149
  | location = [[Alachua County, Florida]], [[United States|USA]]
  | nearest_city = [[Alachua, Florida]]
  | lat_degrees = 
  | lat_minutes = 
  | lat_seconds = 
  | lat_direction = 
  | long_degrees = 
  | long_minutes = 
  | long_seconds = 
  | long_direction = 
  | area = 
  | built = 
  | added = [[July 14]], [[2000]]
  | visitation_num = 
  | visitation_year = 
  | refnum = 
  | mpsub = 
  | governing_body = [[National Register of Historic Places]]
}}

[edit] Sub-pages

• All template sub-pages

[edit] Comments

[edit] Suggestions, multiuse

The National Register is not a primary interest of mine, but I have dealt with many NR articles either from interest in historic architecture, or historic areas of the Nat'l Park System. However, I tried this template yesterday for "Tate House (Georgia)" and had some thoughts:

• Why not make the template multiuse, opening it up for two related NPS programs: Nat'l Historic Landmarks (as subset of the NR, anyway) and National Natural Landmarks? This could be done the same way the Template:Infobox Protected area differentiates IUCN categories. You would then need additional optional fields for NHL or NNL designation date.
• Change "Governing body" to "Owner"
• Have "Location" correspond to the place name in the NR database, with state name
• Drop "Nearest city" and add "County" -- again, another NR database column
• I would also be tempted to eliminate the locator dot option altogether, and promote a picture-only rather than a map option.

— Eoghanacht ^talk 12:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

When I created the template, I basically copied the Protected area infobox and tweaked it a bit, just so we had something for the project. I expected/hoped that others would see ways to improve it. :)

Now, regarding the suggestions:

• I do like the idea of distinguishing the Historic Landmarks, as they're automatically added to the Register as part of the process. And to my mind, they have more FA-article potential, so it'd be nice to bring out that aspect. As far as the Natural Landmark part, most of them don't seem to be on the Register, strangely enough. For example, only two of the ones in Florida are NRHP sites. We could add a category for it to the template, but I'm not sure there's enough overlap. Could maybe other folks look at the List of National Natural Landmarks and see how many in their states are also NRHP sites?
• Ah, the "Governing body"/"Owner" dichotomy. This one's tricky, b/c it's not always easy to tell who owns the properties. Governmental ones can usually be discovered (federal, state, county, city), but when it's privately owned, not so much. Could put an extra field for owner, though. Then maybe change "governing body" to "Administrated by" and have it automatically be NRHP.
• Can't tell you how many entries have wrong locations on the Register. Misspelled town names, even "City unavailable". Not to mention moving (e.g., a midget submarine listed on the Register in Key West was relocated to Texas years ago!). The correct city, with the state, sounds fine, though.
• If "location" becomes for city, a "county" field wouldn't be amiss. A number of archaeological sites down here in Florida aren't in any particular city, and often have their addresses restricted. But you can almost always tell what county they're in.
• I'd go for removing the map option, but so many of the sites don't have readily available pictures. Or decent ones, anyway. And it's nice to have some image in the infobox, even if it's a map. I've even noticed some folks using state maps, with the site's location within the state, which to me is even nicer. Admittedly, I've seen plenty of actor infoboxes with no pictures, and they're OK, I guess.

Ultimately, though, all the fields are optional anyway. When not sure, I hope folks will leave them empty. Better no information than inaccurate would seem logical to me.

I'll probably add at least one or two more of the optional fields, and see what feedback is overall. Much thanks for the ideas! :) -Ebyabe 13:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a category for National Monuments? Look at the List of National Monuments of the United States to see what I mean. There's not many, but I think they're mostly NRHP sites too. -Ebyabe 14:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, the National stuff is already pretty much covered in the Protected area infobox. Rather than add categories to this template, like the IUCN, I think it might be better to use the Protected area infobox. I figured the NRHP infobox more for "unprotected" areas (houses, commercial properties, etc.). Not wanting to reinvent the wheel, essentially, but paint it a new color. :) --Ebyabe 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My thought for type/status (similar in coding used for the IUCN field on the Protected area infobox) would be to enter either "NR" "NHL" or "NNL" and it would automatically display a color coded banner under the property title indicating its designation. (Obviously, NHLs are automatically NRs also.) Adding an Nat'l Natural Landmark option made sense not because they are also NRs, but because it is a sister program of NHLs -- and therefore may benefit from a similar infobox. It was just a thought -- if you don't like it, ignor it.

As for National Monuments (NMs), they are an odd breed. You cannot categorize them as a group easily -- here's why: All Nat'l Historic Sites, Historical Parks, Memorials, Battlefields and the like are automatically listed on the register as historic units of the National Park Service (NPS), as per the 1966 law (and therefore they are sub categories of the Wikipedia NR category). However, not all NMs are administered by the NPS. Also, the president can proclaim NMs for two reasons: 1) cultural value (i.e. historic) and 2) scientific value (i.e. natural). Many NMs were automatically added to the NR in 1966 (or when established afterwards) because they were cultural sites given to the NPS. But there are natural NMs under the NPS that are not on the register -- likewise there are cultural NMs under other agencies that have never been listed on the NR. A minor project of mine has been to wiki-categorize all NMs on the register by their state listing. I still have not finished. — Eoghanacht ^talk 16:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I added an option for National Historic Landmarks. Since protected areas only has an option for "Natural Monuments", which doesn't fit for buildings, I thought, "Why not?" See the article for the Cathedral Basilica of St. Augustine for an example, until we add a "how-to" here. --Ebyabe 21:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I can (maybe not till early next week, though). — Eoghanacht ^talk 22:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My infobox thoughts

• Yes, an optional line for NHLs, as I suggested over at the project talk page!

• How about setting it up a la the city and road infoboxes so it could include both an image and location map? That way you could use a map for a large historic district (there are many) if a picture won't do (Or use the pictures of individual buildings within it elsewhere in the article). Daniel Case 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Got a specific example? Any will do. Funny, my first major project for the Florida list was doing stubs for all the historic districts here (about 200), so I know what you mean. --Ebyabe 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• How does one link to a picture uploaded to the Commons? As of right now, it automatically enters image: in front of the syntax killing the link:

image:commons:image:StAnnesHillHDMap.svg

Thanks!--Kjmoran 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I think there may have been a scaling problem in scaling that SVG file down to 288 pixels. When I tried it at 273 pixels (half the size of the old image), it worked fine, but 288 pixels just gave me a blank image. I took the liberty of editing your original SVG file from the Commons, scaling it to 288 pixels, and uploading it under a new name at the Commons. This appears to work properly in the infobox. Also, you don't need to specify attributes like the image width or thumbnails or anything else. I don't know if it'll break the infobox template, but it won't do what you want it to do. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you! --Ebyabe 18:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USA

• Should it be clarified that this is the United States National Register of Historic Places in the infobox? --Dystopos 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You've got a point. Changed it to U.S., but links to United States. Don't wanna cram too many words in the box headings, that's all. Also changed the National Historic Landmark and Registered Historic District headings. --Ebyabe 01:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nrhp_type

What's the recommended way to deal with NHLs that are Historic Districts? What should be entered as nrhp_type? -Ipoellet 21:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• nrhp_type is "hd" in this case. That gets expanded to {{Infobox nrhp/NRHP hd}} when the main Infobox nrhp template is called. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That bothers me, though, because it loses some information. The tag "hd" leaves open whether the district is a NHL or just a NR district. My thought is to add a template subpage for {{Infobox nrhp/NRHP nhld}}, which would display as "U.S. National Historic Landmark District". 'Course I don't know how to do that. Thoughts? -Ipoellet 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You know, you're right. It's a small subset of the historic districts, but worth noting. In fact, when I was doing the stubs for List of Registered Historic Places in Florida, I started with the districts. And made the mistake of calling them all landmark districts in the articles before I understood the distinction. After I'd already finished them. So I'm still undoing that. Live and learn, I guess. Anyway, I'll cobble something together for the landmark districts, that's easy. Deciding what color, that's the hard part. :) --Ebyabe 13:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Done! --Ebyabe 14:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • So cool. I even like the color selection. -Ipoellet 14:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)