Talk:List of Registered Historic Places in Indiana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Indiana, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Indiana.
List	This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

This list is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] Bad links abound

I am concerned about putting link brackets [[ ]] around every single place on the list. I myself removed 2 out of the 3 links in the Steuben County section because they were just plain wrong and there was no existing article on the actual Steuben County Place.

Looking through the rest of the list, I found more bad links than good. For example, out of the 5 blue-links, in Allen County, 1 was a good link, 1 dumped me into a disambiguation page (from which I found the article), and 3 were just bad.

In other words, based on my sample, most of the blue links are wrong and misleading.

I strongly suggest that we remove at least the red-link brackets. If and when, someone writes an article, then they can create the link. MrHarman 21:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if any of the links are to Registered Historic Places in Indiana. They just happen to go to some article with the same name. We might as well remove all the bad links until an applicable article is written. Rfrisbie^talk 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

We also could rename "bad" articles that really need a "disambiguation" by using naming conventions similar what's used for school names: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools). See List of high schools in Indiana for an example. That way, red links can stay red, "bad blue" links will go red, and "real blue" links will be obvious. It also sets up proper article names when the time comes for something to be written. Rfrisbie^talk 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I voted for two different choices, so I'll break the tie and vote for the second, "renaming" option! >;-o) Rfrisbie^talk 23:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Two examples would be Masonic Temple as [[Masonic Temple (Fort Wayne, Indiana)|Masonic Temple]] and Masonic Temple as [[Masonic Temple (Muncie, Indiana)|Masonic Temple]]. Rfrisbie^talk 02:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem with any naming convention will be that there are many good articles already written on many of these places. I would guesstimate perhaps a couple dozen for Indiana and hundreds throughout the nation. Would we change the name of each of these articles simply to fit the Historical Places naming convention? They may already have a separate naming convention or be so famous that a Historic Places naming convention would be the tail wagging the dog. Or would there be double-redirects??

I guess I was looking for a quick fix to the problem, perhaps by at least deleting the red-links to prevent further spurious links. That could be done within half-an-hour at most. Moreover, I think all the red-links just don't look good. Is there a rule about how much red there should be?? MrHarman 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, MrHarmon. I don't know if you think I was suggesting changing the names of existing articles, but I'm not. I'm talking about disambiguation of the same name for different things, such as the Masonic Temple in Fort Wayne is not the same as the Masonic Temple in Muncie, or any other location. If articles ever are written about them, I'm sure they will reference general articles about Freemasonry and related topics.

As far as red links go, here's a quote from the project working on lots of them, "While it is perfectly valid to have a red link to a topic that will one day have an encyclopaedic article of its own, some articles may contain red links to topics that never will (or should!) exist. If any of the articles below do this, correct them then remove from the list."

My impression is that if an article should be written about something, especially in a list like this, then red links are fine. Considering the entire Category:National Register of Historic Places was created this way, others must think they are okay too.

If it's okay with you, I can go ahead and start working on disambiguating the "bad" blue links here. It won't take too long, and it will give me a chance to visit a few more historical articles. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 12:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm still a bit confused. For example, how would you handle the Allen County Courthouse, which has a good blue-link? I would suggest leaving this alone. How about the Allen County Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception which sends you to a disambig page, which in turn has the correct link?? I would think that the link should send us directly to the correct article, rather than a disambiguation page.

Bottom line, I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all solution to this problem and any Indiana solution should also be compatible with the other states (which I see have exactly the same problems with bad blue links).

Sorry, I guess I'm better at finding than fixing problems.  : )MrHarman 13:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Finding problems is a good thing! ;-) In this case, all the List of National Register of Historic Places entries, the "problem" (lots of red links), was created on purpose. I'll add one more "rule" to my suggestion - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." So, Allen County Courthouse stays put, it's fine. Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception for Fort Wayne already has the article, Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Fort Wayne. For this list, I would just keep the display looking the same (as common usage) by changing the wikilink to a "pipe" that bypasses the disambiguation page and looks like this [[Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Fort Wayne|Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception]] and displays like this Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. For any "bad" blue links that don't have an article, I would use the naming conventions I suggested to make a new red link. Rfrisbie^talk 14:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Rfrisbie. Go get 'em! MrHarman 15:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

HoKay! ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 16:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Done! Rfrisbie^talk 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useful

I have found this page useful. It gives me places to go check out. I did all the Jeffersonville ones, and plant to get to most of the Clark and Floyd ones by the end of the month. I did have to edit those that were wrong, and even created a few that were missed.--Bedford 04:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)