Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 2

1765:

established by documentation of NRHP listing by references to NRIS), which have all been resolved, eventually, uniformly against Blueboar's strongly held opinions. This has involved multiple calls to Disambiguation-focused editors, NRHP-focused editors, ANI/3rr, Reliable Sources Noticeboard, in a total of discussion sections that must be over 50 now, and hundreds of edits by many editors. This is a pretty big consumption of community attention, all generally applied to dealing with one or a few Freemasonry-focused editors acting out their personal assertions, in the absence of their having knowledge about NRHP sources and general Knowledge policies about disambiguation and other matters. Maybe that is good education of them going on, but it seems unduly contentious and inefficient. In general there's been total dismissal of advice that i and others with knowledge about various matters, including some Freemasonry-focused others, have given patiently. I firmly believe that the current issue is being seized upon by Blueboar as important personally for him to win one, finally. Unfortunately he has been misled a little bit by some others' comments (in particular from an NRHP-focused editor who has recently had other disagreements with me, and who has been gamely trying to come up with an acceptable alternative avoiding use of NRIS), and Blueboar has seized upon an ill-considered solution. Overall i don't think he has done that badly in coming to his current proposal, but unfortunately he is completely unfamiliar with the NRIS database, with NRHP nomination documents, and everything else most directly relevant here, so he is completely vulnerable to misunderstandings, especially when biased now towards opposing anything i suggest. If I had been advocating his currently proposed solution, I firmly believe that he would have been very happily joining a chorus of opposition pointing out the deficiencies. You can take or leave this assessment of background by me.

1848:

file saying the NRHP nomination documents have not been digitized (which is certainly unhelpful, and quite possibly false, too, though the system will not let you get to them). There are "Keywords" which don't identify those names refer to architects or builders. There is a "Published: 11/29/2001" date, which one might assume means that the NRHP nomination text and photo documents that should be linked, were published on that date. It actually seems that assumption isn't correct, but rather the date "Published" field is occupied by the NRHP listing date, for NRHP-listed items. For example, for the Alabama State Capitol and other NRHPs which were designated National Historic Landmarks before 1966, the published field is the NRHP listing date of October 15, 1966 for all of those, while the linked NRHP nomination-type documents weren't written until much later (not until 1979 in the Alabama State Capitol's case). It may be the case, but is not actually known or asserted anywhere that i know of, that the subset of NRHP-nominated places which are displayed in NPS Focus are just the ones that were in fact NRHP-listed and which also remain NRHP-listed up to some unspecified date. With some extra information, we could well conclude that, but then the reference still does not actually assert the NRHP listing. I actually suspect Blueboar would be crying foul if i were the one advocating this reference, due to the poor experience it gives to readers and editors, if i was using it to assert NRHP listing and/or date of NRHP listing or anything else.

1209:

search. I gather you have seen in Knowledge RS policy somewhere that Google-type search results are not citable sources. But this database is not like a Google search, because the contents of the internet covered by a Google search are both infinite and ever-changing, and not reliable. This copy of the database, instead, has just its 85000 records and is unchanging. It will always be available, like a book or a fixed spreadsheet, to verify that any specific record contains whatever is asserted about it. It is not an open-ended search, really, to find what is said in the database about a given place like the Crane Hill site. There's no uncertainty as to what will be found. It is, instead, a 100% reliable, certain lookup of exactly what is there, on the rows having title "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge" or equivalently on the rows having database reference number 01001294. Also by the way Crane Hill is in Alabama. If you want to refer to a "page number" in the database, you can best do that by giving the unique name "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge" or equivalently the reference number. Does this help? --

3004:

numbers, and the ID number can be used to retrieve the unique record. Because every NRHP listing action generates a separate record, some properties on the National Register are associated with more than one identification number (because the same property is the subject of multiple listing actions). For example, 70000118 and 79003730 are both related to the Eureka Springs Historic District in Arkansas, which was listed in 1970 and expanded in 1979; the fact that the property has two numbers does not mean that those numbers are not uniquely associated with the property. The fact that the National Park Service has not implemented an Internet user interface that assigns a unique and neat-appearing URL to each record in the database should not be misconstrued as indicating that there is something wrong with the database or with the information in it. (The NPS has dysfunctional web programming, but the underlying information is solid. Don't confuse the quality of the online interface with the quality of the content.)

953:

information comes from the NRIS database itself, which i consulted from either the March 13, 2009 edition which i myself downloaded, or from the copy downloaded by User:Elkman. NRIS, the database, is the direct source. Yes NRIS includes info mostly taken from NRHP nomination documents, but also additional information, and it is the direct source for information such as the "gable fronted" snippet of information, which does not appear in NPS Focus, a different system. You have to accept that it is a source, like a book, which you might not be able to use to verify from, if you yourself consult a copy of the book or database. Is there some other wording that would satisfy you, like an explicit statement: "This is a database, which, like an off-line book, is a source which can be used to verify the information reported." That wording would be heavy-handed, of course, but there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding so maybe heavy-handed explanation is needed? --

334:

be NRHP-listed by use of Elkman's interface or by other means. If pushed, as above, I would choose to accept the NRHP.COM-reported reason or the NRHP.COM's reported reference number as probably accurate, but in a wikipedia article I would cite NRIS directly, instead. (Again, NRHP docs are the underlying source for NRIS; NRIS is the underlying source for NRHP.COM, which is just a copy with some introduced systematic errors). I have myself downloaded the NRIS database and run some programs to generate some reports, and I could conceivably run reports on the reasons for NRHP listing. But better still for any specific site would be to obtain the NRHP nomination document, which gives both general checkoff codes for reasons and actual text explanations of the reasons why a place is nominated for NRHP-listing. Such as association with a specific historic person, or being the place of a specific event, or whatever. Hope this helps. --

2483:

recent and apparently incomplete, continuing changes at the National Register, and will be handled by consensus decisions elsewhere, and then a big coordinated editing campaign, or a single bot run, will implement the change everywhere. I don't want to waste time on temporary small changes that would only cause more work, later. I made a specific suggestion in my statement above that would have sufficed. I don't want to quibble, but Blueboar's latest suggestion above is inadequate because it names a source that does not exist (the source we're talking about is the National Register Information System, not a source named "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge"). To keep this short, Blueboar and MSJpapan, could you agree that we each should make one more exact, complete, final proposal for the exact form of a reference to appear in this list article (until a new general NRIS reference is rolled out), and then let MSJapan pick one? --

656:

wishes to form and enter NPS Focus footnotes to substitute for other NRIS footnotes, and if the NPS Focus footnote does actually provide the specific support needed for a given entry, i will not delete such substitutions. But if wholesale deletion of sourcing again occurs, i will be inclined to revert again, perhaps again losing other minor or major edits that might be made, inbetween. It is wasteful as a matter of developing a properly sourced article, to merely delete footnotes, losing track of which information is sourced. I don't know, maybe the editors here have little experience developing sourced articles, or otherwise don't care to keep track of which information is sourced vs. which is just randomly written in by editors writing from their personal knowledge or beliefs. Is that the case? I think i am the only one present who has developed sourced material in this list-article, anyhow. --

2834:

the NRIS reference with a link to such an archive should continue elsewhere. I saw fit to return to wp:RSN to point out Jayjg's discussion-ending comment there was, as i said there "horse do-do". It was entirely ignoring patient, informed discussion by many editors; Jayjg once was apparently, but no longer is, an arbcom arbitrator, and emphatic statements outside that role don't convince me or others. I reiterate: the most sensible solution now is to re-implement the original, standard NRIS reference here, and to direct Jayjg to participate in discussion on improving the NRIS reference (perhaps with archive-stashing) elsewhere. At this point J and I have disagreed several times, so further back-and-forth is not likely to be productive, so J, if you comment again, I likely may not. --

2901:, where editors are waiting for new info from the National Register on its changes. There is no need for an RFC or yet another discussion calling for editors' attention. You have MSJ's attention as a mediator here, that is all that is needed to settle the format of NRIS reference to be used in this list-article's sourcing. I feel i must say, Blueboar, I find your inclination to open dozens of new discussion sections (whenever you feel older discussion sections are flagging or whatever is your impetus) on essentially the very same topic to be seriously detrimental. It divides and confuses the issues, and causes editor attention fatigue. Your questions here are exactly the questions addressed by our statements and this mediation, in this section, here. -- 3247:

footnote to update the standard NRIS footnote. You seem to oppose including mention of the Elkman's website from mainstream articles. All indications from history are that now-infrequent-editor Elkman did/does not want his website cited in thousands of references from mainspace articles. The standard NRIS footnote will be updated wikipedia-wide, to drop the URL which seems no longer to work, perhaps to include a different URL if the National Park Service posts the NRIS database for downloading somewhere new (which correspondence indicates it may). Linking to Elkman's website didn't happen in any mainspace articles, and it isn't going to happen. This seems to be settled and/or moot. Thank you for your input. --

924:, which is a reference to the National Register Information System, which is a database. A URL is provided to where you can download the database. The 2009-03-13 edition date for the database is given. I think it is pretty clear. But are you saying you wish for a formatting change to the reference, to explain "This is a database, and the exact information cited appears in the database and not at the URL which is where you can download the database" or something less wordy, to that effect? I am not averse to some wording expansion or other improvement in the reference. But, as pointed out in the RSN discussion, it is a valid, reliable source, and is the source for the information here. -- 2700:... I think we are miscommunicating again... I am not citing a separate source ... I am citing the entry within the NRIS database for that specific building. (I would assume that the entry in the NRIS database on Crane Hill Masonic Lodge is entitled "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge". If not, how do you know what building the entry is talking about?) I understand that you would prefer one single citation that you can be cut and pasted, and used for all the buildings on this list... but I think that is wrong. For a proper citation, we need to give the entry name in the Database, as that is the equivalent of including chapter and page numbers. 1929:. If (as in many instances) all three of those criteria are going to be satisfied on the basis of an entry in NRIS, I would think that a citation to the NRIS database (not to www.nr.nps.gov, but rather to the database) ought be sufficient. Since a reader could go to the database (if the database can't be downloaded, this can be done using NPS Focus or a third-party interface such as Elkman's tool) to verify the existence of an NRHP-listed property matching the entry, that ought to suffice for the purposes of this particular list-article. (But, then again, I don't think that this particular list-article has value...) -- 1863:

comprehensive NRIS database, which is well-understood by numerous NRHP editors, instead, for anything that might be somewhat supported by an NPS Focus reference. So, for this list-article, i would add NRHP nomination document references wherever NRHP nomination documents are readily available, delete all the recently constructed separate NPS Focus references, and revise and keep all the NRIS references where not replaced by NRHP application references (and note the NRIS references would all be the same, so really there is just one reference applied multiple times, saving considerable clutter). --

1859:(This info copy-pasted from Elkman interface output. There are additional NRIS fields available which apply to other properties, or which Elkman's interface does not happen to display, too.) For sites that once were NRHP-listed, but which have been demolished and delisted, or for sites that have been proposed for NRHP listing but denied, and for other status conditions, the NRIS database has comparable information, with information current as of the closing edition date of the NRIS database. It currently appears to me that NPS Focus does not contain any of that other information. 1836:, it would be a falsehood and unethical to state in articles that NPS Focus or the NRHP nomination documents were the source for info, when NRIS was the source. It is easy to show examples where NPS Focus lacks info that is in NRIS (such as "gable front" factoid for the Crane Hill one, and coordinates information, and probably many fields like alternative names, architectural style info, and more) and that NRHP nomination documents also lack info that is in NRIS (such as NRHP listing date, usually, and any later updates such as delistings to NRHP listing status). 1832:

revised one NRHP list-article to include multiple links to NPS Focus instead or in addition to NRIS, there is no consensus among NRHP editors that such is generally (or ever) appropriate. In fact I believe that NRHP editors would strongly reject any requirement to jettison NRIS, the actual source for vast amounts of information in NRHP list-articles, in favor of multiple poor NPS Focus references cluttering up articles and directing readers towards unsatisfactory experiences. Paraphrasing what Orlady helpfully pointed out in Talk above and/or at

1630:

of these two things. I believe that there is a consensus that being listed on the NRHP confers notability on a building (I don't completely agree with that consensus, but I will abide by that consensus). Thus, we can establish notability for entries in the US by establishing that the building is on the NRHP. The debate we are attempting to resolve center on how best to do this. I am going to combine MSJapan's steps into one comment... because for me, the debate is less about what sources are acceptable as it is what source is not acceptable.

3402:

instead Knowledge has simply cited the factfinder website, where anybody can verify the Census data included in articles. That site is actually an exceptionally good resource -- and it is far superior technically to the NRIS websites -- presumably because the dissemination of Census data is a far higher government priority than the dissemination of National Register of Historic Places information. As it happens, some time since 1-31-2008, factfinder has made it possible to create links to some specific factfinder output (for example,

3012:) does allow records to be searched by "reference number", which is the unique identification number in NRIS, and the NRIS identification numbers are included in the filenames for the NRHP nomination forms. This and other interfaces also allow the database to be searched by property name, location, and other attributes, so a person with access to a functioning database interface should be able to verify that a particular property is listed. Verifiability does not depend on having a unique URL. 2627:, a full copy of this NRIS database version can be placed in a publicly available internet archive, as the database is in the public domain.) In a bow to Blueboar, this includes a pointer to Elkman.net's copy of the database, although Elkman has not consented and it may not be possible to include such a pointer in future versions. Anyhow, this version could be used immediately in this list-article for now, until NRHP editors and others come up with a new version to be rolled out everywhere. 1979:

entirely reproducible (and thus to my mind verifiable). This I think is a key distinction between merely attempting to "cite" a Google search search result, and looking at the results returned from a specific database. Google searches are not (in my experience), reproducible, runnning the same search seconds apart is not guaranteed to return you the same set of results (the top few hits will probably be the same, but once you get down in the long tail, there can be all sorts of variances).

31: 1844:

All Rights Reserved Format/Size: Physical document with text, photos and map Language: eng: English Note: 14538 Cty. Rd. 222 Item No.: 01001294 NRIS (National Register Information System) Subject: EVENT Subject: SOCIAL HISTORY Subject: BUILDING Subject: 1950-1974 Subject: 1925-1949 Subject: 1900-1924 Keywords: Cooper,Philip Aquilla;Boone,Robert;1904 Place: ALABAMA -- Cullman County -- Crane Hill Record Number: 348318 Record Owner: National Register of Historic Places

2778:

there is a huge consensus explicitly and by practice of use, that the NRIS database is a reliable source. It is reliable: Orlady or me or others can reliably get the same info out of it. It seems to me like the appropriate decision for MSJ now is to settle this by choosing the usual NRIS reference, and to direct parties like Blueboar and Jayjg to participate in broader discussion about a preferred version for that reference, at other more general forums (Jayjg has commented at

1361:, on this page, and I think also at the NRHP Wikiproject talk page. Unfortunately, that site does not parse some of the NRIS data correctly. Some time back we discovered that the acreage values given on that site are off by a factor of 10, and Doncram reports that its listing dates do not distinguish between different kinds of listing events (most importantly, it does not distinguish listings from delistings). It's not a reliable source. -- 2582:

accepted if proposed in the central discussions about a future reference, though he is free to make the proposal. His concern towards showing a non-existent "page number" or otherwise pointing to a more specific place within the database is not shared by me and at least some others, and there is currently no good option that meets that. Pointers to NPS Focus pages are currently useless, effectively, as I explained above.

3579:

is going to get worked out. It is possible/likely that a replacement NRIS reference for wide usage will get worked out elsewhere, in conjunction with new info/new web changes at the National Regisert that may emerge. I will likely start replying less here. There hasn't been anything new to say here for a while, and it seems pointless to keep rehashing the same questions and pointing to the answers already given. --

3067:

constructed elsewhere for general rollout (to replace the widespread NRIS reference which links to a now-offline NPS webpage). This would be a temporary reference for use in this article alone. You have been given several specific options. Please choose one, and/or take action to get more/better proposals on the table, such as by directing Jayjg to come up with a specific option that would be acceptable to him. --

1012:

is some improvement of wording for the NRIS reference, to clarify for you and certain others that this is a reference to a database which is like a book, then that improvement can be implemented sometime in the future. It would be horribly disruptive of anyone to simply remove the NRIS reference which is the source for the given information, especially where there is no other source which can be substituted. --

3455:

information on utterly uncontroversial subjects. In this article, it is information of the general nature of "The Masonic Building at 123 Main St. in Anywhere, Iowa, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on May 2, 1999". I submit that the mere existence of this article is controversial (I don't think that there is an encyclopedic purpose to a list of "Masonic buildings" that are deemed

2334:

something like that, would better identify it for some readers. I and other NRHP editors have meant the database itself when using the term "National Register Information System", but on further thought maybe that term is not specific enough, or should be understood to refer to the current live version that the National Register is updating every day (but to which we do not have access).

2460:. I feel that if you are going to cite the NRIS database, you have to have actually downloaded and seen the entire database (or at least the entire database entry for the property listed here). If you got your information from Elkman's tool, then you need to acknowledge that fact in the citation. If others are willing to accept these stipulations, then I think we can move forward. 2786:, and there is no general agreement at all with Jayjg's extreme view). Jayjg is coming back late here, without having commented for a long time, and Jayjg's extreme view should not be allowed to derail a sensible solution for this one wikipedia article, which is only needed to last until a better NRIS reference is selected by interested editors. -- 3296:

here is manufacturing a concern about a potential problem that does not exist in Knowledge. AFAIK there are no links from mainspace to Elkman's site. Adding links to Elkman's site was considered here, for Blueboar, and he is clearly rejecting that. I am losing respect for MSJ's ability to mediate anything here, from this statement and others. --

2716:

have names, those names may not be unique (for example, there are lots of "Masonic Hall"s and "Old Jail"s); the only unique identifier for a property is the identification number (aside: some properties actually have more than one ID number because each "boundary expansion" gets a separate number, but that's not important here). --

697:

seriously better references, by obtaining NRHP nomination documents? Have you obtained and read a single one of the NRHP documents, ever? Even from the on-line available ones that I have added direct links to? I see no evidence that you have. It just seems hard to see that you are trying to do anything constructive here. -

1164:. NPS Focus is a different system. It does not contain or provide certain information which is provided by NRIS, such as the factoid that the Crane Hill site is "gable fronted". This is absurd to have to keep explaining to you. Your refusal or inability to understand simple concepts is, cumulatively, exasperating. -- 862:

see any consensus that NRIS is unreliable or that, where it is the source for material in wikipedia articles, it should be removed. By all means, go ahead and try to get a consensus there, that where NRIS is the source for something, and there is no other source, that NRIS should not be stated to be the source! --

1441:

going on. Whether it goes through or not, we are going to work this out without anybody editing the page. Since neither of your ways seem to be working, it's going to be done my way, with no complaints. I'm not going to take sides in this, but I am going to make everybody put their money where their mouth is.

3403: 3008:

see that the property was later delisted). There are many frustrating features of the National Park Services new NRIS interface on the new NPS Focus website, including the fact that the main search page does not allow records to be searched by NRIS identification number. However, the advanced search page (

631:

through that system, and you would be seizing upon that as the newest thing to complain about, blaming me. It seems pretty clear that the efforts of several editors here are not to improve the list-article, but rather to find fault in repeated ways. Again, it is unpleasant to try to contribute here. --

3578:

I think we're about done here. There is no "decision" that settles anything here, there's just a wish that some magical solution were available that would meet everyones' wishes. There is a "placeholder" reference in place. I don't think this Talk page is going to be where anything more productive

3003:

Yes, indeed, every record in NRIS has a unique identification number. For example, the number 75001727 is uniquely associated with the entry for the Norris historic district in Tennessee, which was listed on the National Register in 1975. The NRHP infoboxes in some Knowledge articles include those ID

2961:

and expecting that to be usable or helpful for a reader; it simply is not. Therefore, I think we need to find a way to generate direct URLs to satisfy policy. I personally don't care if it's clunky - the link won't be visible as such to the reader as long as we give it a tag. I have a problem with

2577:

forums where consensus for a revised footnote to NRIS will be formed. Blueboar can participate in those discussions which will lead to an editing campaign or bot replacement of the usual NRIS reference. I do ask Blueboar not to go off on editing campaiigns to change other articles' NRIS references,

1847:

Note, it is nowhere actually stated that the place is NRHP-listed, or when it was listed. Conceivably it could be a page showing info for a proposed NRHP listing, or one that had been delisted, or any of various other possibilities. The two URLs it suggests don't work: they only bring you to a PDF

1673:

support the information in our articles. Thus, this web page does not, and never did pass WP:V. Even when the search function worked, a reader wishing to verify that a building was listed would have had to use an attached search function to confirm the statement. It has long been held that search

1653:

are the best choice. These webpages contains the logo of the NRHP, and the name of the specific building (and link directly to another page that contains more info about the building). The example I just gave directly supports the fact that Crane Hill Masonic Lodge is listed on the NRHP. It may be

1516:

above, about the specific suggestion proposed by Orlady and revised slightly by me? Then that can be used everywhere that i used the previous NRIS reference, where i had used NRIS as the source for info in this list-article. And we are all done then. If Blueboard disagrees, then he needs to convince

1413:

The Historic Places Database is kinda interesting, as it appears to have public domain NRIS information plus additional text copied either from Knowledge articles or copied from NRHP nomination documents, possibly in violation of copyrights. But I don't expect it serves as an independent source, and

1011:

Umm, no, you misunderstand and/or misconstrue what is being said elsewhere. And what you wish for -- no sources!? -- is no way to develop an article while keeping track of which sources support which facts. There is no consensus anywhere that NRIS references should be removed willy-nilly. If there

723:

Link to NRHP - NPS Focus page for Masonic Temple in Kingman" are among the ugliest excuses for a reference citation that I've ever seen at Knowledge. A decent reference citation ought to bear some resemblance to the type of citation one would see in an academic journal or student term paper, and that

333:

on that date. You can't tell which is which. Also their reporting of acreage of each listing is off by a factor of 10. There may be other systematic errors, too. But, I don't know of any systematic error in NRHP.COM's reporting of listing reason codes, for any site that has already be verified to

207:

I can't apologize for getting frustrated that no one is consulting any sources on these. But I will acknowledge that I have greater facility than you in figuring out what the NRHP's NRIS database says. You might not be able to look these up easily (although you would come across examples if you did

3401:

No. The fact of the matter is that, much like the situation with NRIS, the online interface for the US Census is not structured to allow creation of stable URL links to individual records. That has not caused Wikipedians to rush to various noticeboards shouting that US Census data cannot be trusted;

3295:

WTF! To start, are you disbelieving my statements that i did use the Elkman interface to the NRIS database to look up certain information? Second, when/where did i ever say Elkman's interface is not reliable? Where did i mention a "somebody else"? I was stating that Blueboar's discussion section

3007:

Given an identification number and a software interface to the NRIS database, anybody should be able to verify that a particular property is listed on the database (or was listed there at one time -- a single identification number may not pull up all results for a property, so you may not be able to

2581:

Again, Blueboar's proposals posit the existence of a source named "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge", which does not exist. We're talking about a database named the "National Register Information System"! And, there is no support garnered by B's specific proposal here, and I firmly believe it would not be

2337:

About the additional instructions in your example, offhand that seems a little unfortunate to have to include, but at least it is reasonably succinct and obviously meets your needs in dealing with other editors at that page, i guess. Here, with NRIS, there is no longer a National Register-supported

1827:

Older references show an earlier date than the latest 2009-03-13 edition date, referring to earlier editions of the NRIS database that were previously available and were used. This usual reference is somewhat vague about what the 3-13-2009 date signifies. The change to the revised version is small

1629:

As I have stated in the discussions above, there are two things we need to establish (through citations) for each entry in this article... 1) why the building is notable, and 2) why the building is considered a "Masonic building". The present disagreement focuses on properly establishing the first

1569:

I was not thinking of convincing you (I agree that we are beyond convincing each other)... but you made some statements that I would like to comment on in a separate sub-section, for the benefit of those other (neutral) editors that MSJ will call in to help resolve our debate. If he says no... that

1061:

My notion is that the citation should include both the version date of the database and the date that a Wikipedian retrieved it. The second date may seem extraneous, but (because electronic sources can be modified without the modification being detectable) it is often deemed necessary to include the

1031:

on ." The date would, of course, need to be inserted (this would be either the date that Elkman downloaded the data or the date that the user downloaded it). Also, the download center link is currently not functioning; it was working earlier this morning, so I don't know if the National Park Service

135:

Someone keeps editing the lede to make incorrect claims, and then call for citations to prove the incorrect claims. For example that ". Some are architecturally significant and those specific to the United States are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places for that reason. " NO, as

3537:

I don't see the "decision" as a resolution. The "decision" amounts to MSJ saying he would prefer for an NPS-based reference with some URL to be created that would support the information in the article, magically. There is no way currently to form a reference using the NPS Focus system that would

3324:

Since we're going in circles, it's time to come to a resolution. 1. Policy is clear that is not appropriate to use a front page citation or a search result as a citation, so the generic DB citation is no good. 2. Elkman's tool is not appropriate to use as a citation because it's a WP user-created

3127:

There is another issue to consider here (one which probably needs to be hammered out at RSN and not here, but I raise it anyway)... is the Elkman interface a reliable source by Wikipeida's rules. I am not sure. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is a program written by a Wikipedian

2953:

in every record that identifies that particular record. In short, I can have 37 records that are identical, but if I want to get #19 in particular, I can do it. With an online DB, there's no difference - each record should have a direct and unique URL. This has been shown to be the case with NPS,

2715:

The fact of the matter is that the NRIS entries are not anything like pages in a book. Think in terms of a row in a spreadsheet (notwithstanding the fact that NRIS is not organized as a spreadsheet -- it's still not much more complex than a spreadsheet). Furthermore, although the individual entries

2211:

we can use the NRIS Database as a source" issue, depending on who I talk to (when I talk to Jay, he convinces me that the NRIS database should not be used... when I talk to you or Doncram, you convince me it should). So I have set that issue to one side as it relates to this article, and have been

1948:

Given that the majority of the votes in the AfD were to keep this article we have to make the best of that. The rationale remains in question and I would suggest that implies a need for a high degree of rigour and clarity around sourcing. with that in mind I agree with Blueboar that there are two

1924:

I do realize that there's a perceived need to figure out how entries in this particular list-article should be sourced. I actually don't care. However, I am rather horrified to think that users are painstakingly looking up the NRHP entries for each of these "Masonic buildings" in order to give each

1916:

MSJapan asked me to come here and elaborate upon my comment that said I agree with Doncram's statement under "Current issues." I'm afraid I don't have much to add. I've already discussed this topic at some length on the reliable sources noticeboard, and Doncram has written a long piece above, and I

1912:

Blueboar says "Doncram makes a very solid case in his statement in favor of using the NRIS as a source. What he does not do is make the case for using www.nr.nps.gov as a proper citation to that source." To the contrary, it appears to me that Doncram has accepted the idea the NRHP wikiproject needs

1843:

URL: http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/01001294.pdf Link will open in a new browser window URL: http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/01001294.pdf Link will open in a new browser window Publisher: National Park Service Published: 11/29/2001 Access: Public access Restrictions:

1801:

infromation, it is only honest to show NRIS as the source in a reference. It is absurd to suggest that NRIS as a source, when it is the source, should be disallowed. The usual reference, implemented in over 2,000 list-articles and probably 20,000 or more individual NRHP articles has been like this:

1554:

I hope that MSJapan's assertion this is "Solution time" means NO to that. We're past the point where anything we say will convince each other of anything. There are open discussions above and elsewhere, anyhow. If MSJapan wants nonetheless to allow further comments by us, I hope/request that you

1081:

is correct (while it is not working right at this moment), then I think the following should suffice, and would be a small improvement on the usual NRIS reference: "National Register Information System, edition of 2009-03-13. National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. Retrieved

630:

discussion, I don't think that references to the NPS Focus system are better. I would bet a million dollars that if i had proposed those to you, or put those in myself into this list-article, you would be complaining. Because for the most part they promise documents that are in fact not available

470:

As a note, the one in Connecticut you added a ref to went in as a synagogue, not a Masonic Building, but it was apparently one in the past. Also, the search result is still one step removed from the nomination papers, so can that be fixed at all? Additionally the plugin needed to view the pages no

2944:

1. Jayjg is right, and he has directly pointed out what I was trying to get at by having Don and BB use policy to support their positions. We cannot cite anything if the citation doesn't meet policy. Please note the issue is not with the source itself, but the ability to utilize the source from

2833:

Well, one possibility discussed at wt:NRHP that Jayjg might like is that the NRIS database could be improved in terms of making it reliably-findable-like-a-library-book, by our stashing a copy of it in the WayBackMachine or another permanent, trusted internet archive. Discussion of how to improve

1862:

Bottomline: If the NRHP application is found to be online by searching NPS Focus, it should be used as a reference directly. Whether or not the NRHP application is found there, a reference to NPS Focus currently gives a bad experience and should be avoided. It's better to use a reference to the

1839:

c) The current version of NPS Focus is in terribly poor shape, and references proposed that point to it are pretty horrible, IMO. The NPS Focus reference proposed by Blueboar for the Crane Hill site, to establish its NRHP-listed status, does not establish that. The first page linked shows little

1731:

articles as well. Which will mean that the NRHP WikiProject will be faced with the daunting task of correcting all these flawed citations. They have my sympathy... In an ideal world, someone would have realized that the citation was flawed before it was replicated throughout almost every article

1521:

discussion and/or above and elsewhere. The NRIS reference has long been accepted and is in use in thousands of wikipedia articles; Blueboar's protestations or a brand new discussion section here cannot overturn that. MSJapan, if you want to have a brand new discussion from scratch, please first

1208:

The source is NRIS of the 3/13/2009 edition, which is a specific version of a database that has about 85,000 records. I notice, B, in your statement further below, that you dismiss use of a database as a reference because you note that it is searchable and you view it like the results of a Google

861:

I assume you're referring to my adding some info about the Crane Hill Masonic Temple, including that it is "gable fronted", which comes from NRIS, and my adding NRIS as a source, because it is the source. Note the NPS Focus system does not have that information. About the RSN discussion, I don't

104:

Significance - Open to debate but the fairly bland criteria that seem to apply to this US register don't strike me as particularly useful elsewhere. I'm struggling to see a referencable criterion to be honest. Gut feel says that the Masonic Peace Memorial and perhaps Clerkenwell are significant,

3246:

Stick to the topic of this discussion section, whether Elkman's webpage is a reliable source. It is not cited in any Knowledge mainspace articles, you now agree, thank you. It was proposed, effectively by you or for you (to meet some of your scattered concerns), to be included in a new standard

1764:

There have been multiple previous issues raised and/or highly promoted by Blueboar, such as AFD for this list-article (resolved as Keep), AFDs for related disambiguation pages (all resolved as Keep), and attacks on red-links (mostly resolved as Keep for now, at least where wikipedia-notability is

696:

But Blueboar, that is just pretty nonsensical, to remove the source that was actually used, in favor of no source, losing track of which info is sourced vs. not. If you want to substitute a source for a specific item, that is different. What happened to your supposed willingness to actually add

692:

Hmm, i don't see such a report in your contribution history yet. Maybe you are composing it. Please do point to this discussion in your report. Unfortunately, i have another commitment now and won't be able to respond in some ANI / 3RR discussion. Technically, i don't think i violated 3rr; i

3328:

Now this leaves us with two choices: delete the whole thing as unsourced, or give all the necessary info from NRIS and NPS, because we have nothing else to use. I choose the latter. We will figure out how to derive a URL from the records, which was described on RSN, and we will simply give all

2777:

Well that is an extreme view at this time, ignoring a whole host of previous discussion. It sounds like Jayjg would not allow any use of the NRIS database at all, or, by the same reasoning, would not allow any citation of any book that is not online-available in some perfect format. To repeat,

2482:

About the specific form of reference to NRIS to appear in this page, I am inclined to agree to any format as long as Blueboar agrees it is for just this page, and that he will not make changes to the usual NRIS reference on any other page. Revision of the usual NRIS reference is necessitated by

2002:

This isn't a search engine-type database search -- not even vaguely close to that. This is a matter of finding a specific record (or group of records) in a formatted set of data. When I say that I have used Microsoft software to work with the database, I was referring to Microsoft Office Access.

1978:

I've just come here from RSN, having belatedly seen the discussion. I've faced somehwat similar issues with other databases where I can't find any way to link directly to the information that's relevant to a particular article. However, I can describe a process that makes the result I obtained

1831:

b) NRIS simply is a valid, reliable source. This is widely accepted by hundreds of editors, and the weight of precedent in more than 22,000 articles should not be lightly dismissed. While Dudemanfellabra has recently proposed a NPS Focus-based reference as an alternative in some cases, and has

1440:

be resolved one way or the other. As fingerpointing isn't solving anything, the simple fact is that there is a lack of communication or understanding somehow, and that lack is being mitigated by page reversion. I have asked for full edit protection for the article to avoid some of the nonsense

773:

About Orlady's suggestion and 3 revisions to Arizona entries by Blueboar, I note the displayed text is showing a title that does not appear in the source, i.e. shows "Masonic Temple in Kingman" or "Masonic Hall in Wikenburg", when the linked pages show "Masonic Temple" or "Masonic Hall", alone.

328:

Well, I've just now further above again explained, that the NRHP.COM webpages are not reliable for some things, so I don't like to point readers to them at all by citing them ever. Like they will show a place is NRHP listed and that it was added on a certain date, when in fact that place is not

98:

Coverage - my preference would be craft buildings only as it's a more universal approach to Freemasonry. The treatment of the various appendant bodies is very different outside the US. There is also the issue of perhaps buildings with affiliation where no lodge meets, such as the Royal Masonic

3413:

and articles about individual states typically point to static URLs for Census information, but most articles about counties, cities, towns, villages, etc., use citations in the form I identified above. There is nothing intellectually corrupt about citing U.S. Census Bureau data products as the

3066:

that applies. To the mediator: you appointed yourself, and I think you need to identify an acceptable solution to the dispute at this article. The dispute would be settled by your picking a specific footnote reference to use where information is from NRIS, pending an improved reference being

1710:

is totally unacceptable, and was unacceptable even when the search function worked. The search page is not the NRIS database itself, any more than the table of contents of a book is the book itself. or, perhaps a better analogy would be that pointing to a card cataloge as a valid citation for

1268:

It's on the page labelled "Crane Hill Masonic Hall". Would it help you to think of this like a big spreadsheet? It's on the row with title "Crane Hill Masonic Hall", which you can scroll down and find. There's nothing more helpful to say; it doesn't help you to know that is row 3,542 of the

655:

i restored footnotes supporting NRHP information, including one footnote to NPS Focus and otherwise using the only so-far-formed footnotes. Please note i accept Blueboar's perhaps odd preference for the NPS Focus footnote, which does establish NRHP listing, for the Crane Hill one. If Blueboar

3508:

check to determine that the information that is referenced to NRIS truly was published by the NPS in NRIS. It may not be possible to verify this with a single click on the internet, but "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources." Numerous different ways of

3454:

The NRIS information that is being challenged so vigorously in this discussion is not direct quotations, nor information about living persons, nor other information that is likely to be challenged (except possibly by a bored Wikipedian trying to create wikidrama). Instead, we are talking about

2948:

2. I have to disagree with Orlady. A database has unique entry information - every record has its own number. If it didn't, a database would not be able to work, period. I think what Orlady misconstrues (and she may correct me) is that records can be cross-referenced in a search, returning

2432:

off-track above, but it has come to my attention that all the statements are complete. In the process, it seems we may have come to some sort of agreement without the need for outside help. If we have indeed come to an agreement that , and we have an agreeable way to cite it, I think we have

1952:

I'm prepared to accept the assertion that NRHP listing implies notability of the building with respect to US buildings. There is not yet agreement on comparable automagic assertions of notability for other buildings. I would prefer to see a reference to a specific record that establishes the

1772:

The issues now are simply a) how information which is from NRIS should be shown in a reference (which all must agree should be given in a reference, at least when NRIS is in fact the only source for certain info), b) whether NRIS is a valid source for information generally such as NRHP listing

1328:, which accessible by state , county, parish, etc. and a direct cite can be made to the page where the building in question is actually listed. I know some will object that it is not an official site, but at least it gives you more than a cite to a search page, which may or may not be working. 1076:

Yeah, the website is down, i assume temporarily. Sorry, maybe i wasn't really noticing your version did include the March 13 date. But i think identifying that date more clearly as the edition date would be helpful. While regular NRHP editors understand it as the edition date, sometimes new

1046:

Thanks, Orlady. Actually i think it is appropriate to give the March 13, 2009 date as the edition date of the NRIS data. That is the date it was copied from the live NRIS database into a downlaodable file, which Elkman subsequently downloaded. The actual date that Elkman or I or anyone else

561:

I reverted this ridiculous and stupid set of edits stripping out sourcing from the article. You have launched new discussions elsewhere and, though you get some small sympathy that the source is not everything you wish it would be, you are utterly rejected about basic fact of whether it is a

2333:

I like the descriptive title given, "Database of historically important bells and bell frames". For the NRIS reference being discussed here, perhaps following that by using "National Register Information System (a database)" or "National Register Information System database of 3/13/2009" or

1855:

Architecture: Free standing gable front Other names: (none given in this case) Historic function: social; education; domestic; commerce/trade Historic subfunction: meeting hall; school; multiple dwelling; department store Building is not listed for architecture Number of acres: 1.7 Number of

1584:

I want to see if we can resolve the situation purely on the basis of fulfilling RS, because that is as objective a solution as possible. Counterarguments are a step away from objectivity, and possibly counterproductive, so let's see what we can do with step one first. Let me know when your

602:

As discussed at WP:RSN, citing the link pages at NPS Focus seems to be an acceptable replacement. If formatted correctly, they are unambiguous and are one obvious click from the pages we actually want the reader to access (which, for technical reasons with the NPS website, we can not link to

1800:

This version could be used immediately in this list-article, and if NRHP editors concur, applied in other articles. Or some variation agreed upon by NRHP editors could be rolled out and replace this version here, too. Please note, where the NRIS database is a source and the only source for

952:

The March 13, 2009 edition of the NRIS database is a source, like a book, which can be consulted and verified by many people. What Blueboar states above, that "the information may have come from some document somewhere at NRIS" shows misunderstanding of what is my source for the info. The

273:

from NRIS that it has "Historic Significance: Event" and "Area of Significance: Social History, Native American, Politics/Government". The list-article and the article and the linked NRHP nomination document about the place explain the significant event(s) which occurred there. So for the

2126:

My apologies if I've contributed to confusion, but it has been my impression that Blueboar, Jayjg (at WP:RSN) and others have been saying that the NRIS database is not a suitable source for any content in Knowledge (including this article) because the NRIS web interface will not produce a

3128:

and hosted on his/her personal webpage. Does elkman.net have a reputation for accuracy? I know personal websites are not normally considered reliable, so why should this be an exception? If elkman.net is not reliable, then a citation to the NRIS database that uses it is not allowable.

2622:

That is a further adaptation of reference i proposed above, dropping the download center's URL as it is apparently permanently offline. The source is off-line. (Note a future revision to the standard NRIS reference could include a link to a full copy of the database. Per discussion at

2568:

ask Blueboar to never discuss this. By asking he avoid "mainspace" changes, i meant to prevent him from expressing his opinion indirectly by deleting or changing NRIS references in actual articles of the Knowledge. I meant that he should be free to express his opinion in Talk pages and

774:

Those are not accurate references. The NPS Focus links, any way presented so far, look pretty horrible to me, and in some/perhaps many cases on this list-article are inadequate substitutes for NRIS references (because NRIS is the source for info not appearing in the NPS Focus system). --

2939:

Well, the idea was not to leave it up to me, and I'd prefer not to make a unilateral decision. Also, as discussion seems to be morphing and ongoing, we aren't at a point where a stable position has been reached (though we have made progress). A few comments need to be made, though.

2089:

Sorry, if I have slightly misunderstood your concerns. It seemed to me from the discussion, that potentially there was a wider question as to how to cite information to databases or similar when it's not possible to cite to a static url. In particular, is the approach I've taken in

996:

to do so. There are multiple reasons for this, reasons that have already been noted here and at RSN. You have been involved in these discussions so you should be aware of these reasons. Please, accept what you are being told in multiple venues... and stop linking to this webpage.

1145:

prefer to (temporarily) leave the entry with no source than reinstate a source that is considered flawed. Barring that, I would prefer to cite the NPS Focus page (which, by the way, is a more appropriate reference to the NRIS - as it gets you more directly to NRIS information).

1888:

In order to address this question, I am setting aside for the moment the fact that I still don't perceive that this list-article has a valid purpose and list scope -- and, therefore, I don't have a clear idea what the reference citations in this list are supposed to be sources

1047:

downloaded the March 13 edtiion could be noted, too, i guess, but is secondary. The only way i know to refer to the specific edition of NRIS, is to use the March 13 date. So some further refinement, building on Orlady's draft and clarifying the edition of NRIS, is needed. --

485:

One step forward... three steps back... I may have spoken too soon. And editor (not me this time) has questioned the reliability of the NSP-Focus citations in the discussions at WP:RSN... If it isn't acceptable, we may be back to square one... not being able to substantiate

3404:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=Oliver+Springs&_cityTown=Oliver+Springs&_state=04000US47&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y

348:

It clarifies... Not sure if it helps... it means we essentially have to treat the NRHP.COM website as unreliable. And it sounds as if we are back to needing citations to the original NRHP nomination documents (which, because they are primary sources, have their own set of

3459:

for some reason), but I don't see anything controversial or subject to challenge about these types of simple facts. A single citation to NRIS ought to suffice to tell users where Wikipedians got the information that these particular buildings are listed on the National

2478:

Okay, I agree that Blueboar doesn't have to agree that NRIS is a reliable source, as long as he agrees not to act on his disbelief by removing references or otherwise acting on that in mainspace. There is a vast consensus of hundreds of editors that NRIS is a reliable

2127:

clean-looking URL link that points to a nicely formatted webpage about a specific listed property. Blueboar, are you now saying that you understand that NRIS is a stable and accessible information source, and therefore it would be acceptable to cite NRIS as a source? --

3344:

Q: If policy prohibits so clearly prohibits Knowledge from citing United States government electronic information by simply citing the name of the source, why is it that many thousands of articles cite US Census data using {{GR|2}}?? That template returns a footnote

607:. I have put this in the article... I realize that replacing all of these citations will be time consuming. If Doncram shows a good faith effort to at least begin the process of adding new citations, I will back away from my hard line stance re WP:BURDEN and help. 1953:

existence of the entry. that need not be online but the reference pointer should be to a unique record, not just a general pointer to a database. I don't really think that any method of pointing to the database proxies meet the needs for rigorous referencing.

758:

Just so I can avoid making lots of changes only to have to redo them later... I want to make sure that I am formatting the citation properly ... I have done the Arizona ones along the lines that Orlady suggests... any problems or suggestions before I move on?

625:

As i have explained patiently enough to you before, the direct way to improve this list-article is to obtain NRHP documents and/or other superior sources and use those to actually develop superior material in the article. As i have explained briefly at the

2513:

article, and not change it until further discussion of the issue have been concluded in a more appropriate forum. I also agree to let MSJapan pick what that citation format shall be, and to abide by his choice. As to what I think that citation should be:

1956:

It appears that the NRHP listings do not act as an assertion for Masonic association and I would prefer to see something explicit. In particular I would like to see a definition of what constitutes Masonic significance, but there has been no discussion of

2982:

In short, we need to meet RS and V before worrying about anything else. To do that, we need to generate usable links. To do that, we may need to use NRIS, NPS, Elkman, or whatever else we find, because no source is accurate on its own. Can we do this?

1394:

No... the Historic Places Database does not meet our requirements for reliability. The fact that it is editable by users disqualifies it as a reliable source. There is no check on a user claiming that a building is NRHP listed, when in fact it is not.

2852:

OK folks... It looks like we are back to square one... so let's take this up a notch in the dispute resolution process. I propose that we run an RfC and obtain opinions from the wider community. I can identify three issues that need to be resolved:

1250:(the bolding comes from WP:V). So we need to format a citation accordingly. To go back to my card catalog/library analogy... it is our job to hand the reader the exact book that contains the information and say... "The information is in chapter 5 of 2759:''National Register Information System'', database edition of 2009-03-13. National Register of Historic Places. U.S. National Park Service. Database retrieved from the National Register on 2009-03-15. Information accessible through .</ref: --> 1241:

is akin to citing "card catalog" for information that is found in a specific book in a library with 85,000 books ... and that simply isn't acceptable. As you say, there are some 85,000 records in the NRIS... it is our job to tell the reader which

1460:

There is to be no editing of the article by either party until the situation is resolved. Lack of assent by either party will invalidate that party's position. Editing by either party will likely lead to a block of some duration for disruptive

512:

I am hereby formally challenging the reliability of www.nr.nps.gov as a citation, and removing it as a citation from the article. While there are multiple reasons for this (discussed above)... I will identify two that are of immediate concern:

1925:

entry its own citation. As I understand it, all that is needed for a building to be added to this list is evidence that it (1) exists (or formerly existed), (2) has some sort of connection with Freemasonry, and (3) meets Knowledge criteria for

240:, which is based on NRIS. No one has requested or collected the NRHP nomination document for that one which will explain the "Event" of importance. You can get that document by following the instructions i and others have given to you. -- 1665:, the citation I object to. Doncram seems to think this is an acceptable citation to the NRIS database... it isn't. This web page contains no information on any buildings. Perhaps at one point in the past we could use it to eventually 136:

i and others have explained, the NRHP listings are not just for architectural significance. Please read some of the NRHP documents, and browse some examples where the NRHP listing is not because of the architecture. This is moronic! --

1851:

NRIS, on the other hand, is a database that contains whatever substance is given in that NPS Focus output, with better identification of what the fields actually are, and significantly more information, such as for the Crane Hill site:

3099:(emphasis added): "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Knowledge article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research. 1675: 1633:

There are actually several ways we could cite the fact that a building is on the NRHP... we could cite a book that mentions this fact, or a magazine article that mentions this fact. If there is an offical website for the building,

562:

reliable source. It is in fact the source of the info on each NRHP-listed place for which i added the reference. It is accepted as a reference. Is it 40 discussion sections you have opened attacking this article now? Sheesh. --

1289:

help to know that the information you wanted was at row 3,542. But my point stands... you say: "It's on the page labeled 'Crane Hill Masonic Hall'"... fine... then cite the page labeled "Crane Hill Masonic Hall". But don't cite

1452:. I will then ask for third opinions on the validity of those statements so that none of us here are actually making the decision. If that does not solve the problem, then we're going to have to go to Stage 2, which is why we 3329:

information in the event of a conflict either within or between the two, and leave the reader to make a judgment. If in future the refs improve, or this supposedly new functional DB ever comes online, then we can revisit this.

1722:

to that source. The sad thing is that he is correct in noting that lots and lots of pages cite this webpage... and I suspect this is the underlying reason why Doncram is so desperate to keep the citation. If we determine that

1414:

reference to the more primary NRIS or NRHP nomination document sources would be better. If it copies from Knowledge, it is unacceptable to cite it at all. I doubt it gets any significant amount of contributions from users. --

1026:

I think that the NRIS reference that Blueboar complains about could be fixed by revising it to say: "National Register Information System. National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2009-03-13. Retrieved from

3015:

In addition to clunky programming, one chronic problem with the various NPS websites has been slow and unreliable servers -- in my experience, the Elkman interface has been vastly more dependable. However, last time I looked,

1828:

but actually a substantial concession/advance, actually. Blueboar should be proud of having provoked it; it is no small matter to get consensus to change the standard form of a reference used in many thousands of articles.

2524:

If that is not acceptable, I propose, as a second choice, to cite the NRIS database entry for each property directly, noting if elkman's tool was used... (in this case, the entry for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge would be cited:

1984:

If rather than merely linking to the search page (which I agree is not sufficient), full details of waht terms ned to be entered in which boxes are given - the result returned can be verified, and if necessary, challenged.

3414:

source of census information, and there is nothing intellectually corrupt about citing National Park Service data products as the source of information on properties listed on the NPS's National Register of Historic Places.

3103:: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining material that is not easily accessible." -- 2518: 1650: 725: 720: 604: 169:

buildings are on the NRHP list because they are architecturally significant, and which are on the list for some other reason. It is hard to read "some of the NRHP documents" when you are not told what these documents

693:

simply reverted your edits 3 times, and in my last edit to the article i did something different, accepting your preferred reference for the Crane Hill one, consistent with my comments here, part of ongoing discussion.

3219:

I was talking about the citation you have been using for the majority of the articles on NRHP buildings. The flaw with that citation is threefold: 1) the website no longer exists 2) when the website did exist, the

438:

by the term "Masonic" building. I am not happy with the current working definition of "any building that has some sort of undefined tie to Freemasonry"... but, even if we accept that definition, we still need to

2977:

can be interpreted here to allow for citation of conflicting sources without claiming veracity for any of them. Therefore, I see no issue with citing multiple sources, indicating the differing info, and moving

718:

Pardon my sarcasm, but... I am well aware that heated discussion can inflame tempers and thus cloud otherwise sound minds, and I think that has happened here. I must point out that entries the display like

2670:

The advantage of that is that it simply uses the standard reference and will lead to the least future work. Note there is no special reason why this list-article should have a non-standard reference, vs. :

268:

is not listed for its architecture. Its linked NRHP nomination document's Section 8 shows checkoffs "for politics/government" and "social/humanitarian" but not architecture. Not inconsistently with that,

2433:

addressed both aspects of our initial problem, and we can move on to the next step. If not, I will request further input. So, the simple question to BB and don is, have you come to a happy medium?

3046:

Orlady has answered well. In further response to item 1, I don't think a blanket endorsement of anything and everything Jayjg has said is helpful. I believe Jayjg above disputed the Reliability/

105:

but I can't put my finger on why. My preference would be for masonic significance, rather than buildings where masons happen to meet, so that would for example exempt Canonbury Tower for example.

3488:. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. 2607:, database edition of 2009-03-13. National Register of Historic Places. U.S. National Park Service. Database retrieved from the National Register on 2009-03-15. Information accessible through 2452:

so... but with two stipulations. First, I will not commit to saying that we can use the NRIS database as a source (I am still undecided on that)... but I will agree to saying that we can use it

2957:

3. The Elkman's Tool citation as presented by Don doesn't really help, because it does not generate a specific record URL as presented. This is seriously like going "Daily News 07/27/10" at

371: 216:

is listed for its representation of Social History, first, as well as for Architecture, second. See the "Area of Significance" field, which is NRHP.COM's reporting of what appears in NRIS.

420:

Since we can cite specific NPS-Focus pages for the buildings that are on the NRHP, I think we have a workable solution to issue of substantiating that the buildings on this list are notable

2763:

demands that sources be reliable and publicly available, and private databases, or an individual's personal download of a database on a certain date, does not comply. If you want to change

2578:

outside of a new wide consensus, which would add no value and cause more work and confusion. If Blueboar has some valuable input to make in the general discussion, he should make it there.

3171:

Use of problematic citation is now around 500. Seriously, when you cut and paste the same flawed citation into hundreds of articles, you should not be surprised when others question it.

1178:

Ah, but I did not use NPS Focus to cite the factoid that Crane Hill was "gable fronted"... I cited it to support the statement that the Masonic Lodge in Crane Hill was NRHP-listed... and

938:

Tht's not what I got out of that discussion. I got the following: "go get it yourself" is not acceptable in a source, and downloading a DB is not an acceptable means to verify a source.

1732:

written by a very prolific WikiProject. But... we don't live in an ideal world, the problem wasn't caught early on... and now does have to be fixed. At minimum, we can fix the problem

1380:, which generates a unique URL for each NRHP listing. It does have the factor of 10 error in acreage but all the NRIS data is there. That website is also editable by registered users. -- 3208:{{cite web|url=http://www.nr.nps.gov/|title=National Register Information System|date=2009-03-13|work=National Register of Historic Places|publisher=National Park Service}}</ref: --> 2757:{{cite web|url=http://www.nr.nps.gov/|title=National Register Information System|date=2009-03-13|work=National Register of Historic Places|publisher=National Park Service}}</ref: --> 2800:

Nonsense. Books have to be publicly available; that means, available in a library etc. I'm not a "party" to anything here, nor am I "coming back". I'm telling you what the decision at

2108:

Underdown, given the tensions here... I don't think we should get sidetracked into an issue that relates to some other article. This simply isn't the right venue. The right venue is

721:

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregadvancedsearch.do?searchType=natregadvanced&selectedCollections=NPS%20Digital%20Library&referenceNumber=86001164&natregadvancedsearch=Search

1917:

don't think there's a whole lot more to say. I'm happy that Doncram and I are in agreement (something that doesn't happen real often) and I think that the ideas discussed here and at

2752:

Just to be clear; regardless of what the discussion here concludes, a webpage that simply leads to a database search page (whether working or not) does not, and will never, satisfy

3484:

Verifiability... means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Knowledge article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by

3430:

does not require single-click online access to the precise place where a particular piece of information came from. Please note the following excerpts from that Knowledge policy:

2338:

interface, so there's no such instructions that could be provided. What do you think of the wording of the suggested NRIS reference in my Statement above? Thanks for sharing! --

1504:

Umm, I don't understand what MSJapan is saying in some details (i literally don't understand some of your sentences), although i get the gist of what you mean. However, there is

2730:

The reference should be able to point to a unique record that supports the assertion. In the case of a spreadsheet then there has to be some descriptor that identifies the row.

528:

As Doncram noted above... he did not actually get his information from the website cited... but instead got it from an intermediary search tool. The citation therefor fails per

1674:

engine results are not considered reliable sources on Knowledge. For example, if I am trying to cite information about the Detroit Masonic Temple... I am not allowed to cite

3409:

And there is no "US Census WikiProject". Census data from factfinder is included in every geographic article about every administrative subdivision of the U.S. Articles like

981:

like citing a book... it is more like pointing to the library door and saying "there may be a book that covers this in there somewhere". That simply is not acceptable.

3538:

support information that comes from the NRIS source and which does not appear in the NPS Focus system. There is no solution in this pronouncement of "decision". --

2973:

RS). However, as it is a heavily-used source, I think we need to make it compliant and figure out how to get it to return what we need it to do. I would note that

1526:

discussion and propose closing that discussion first, and explain why. Offhand, I don't think a new discussion to put new demands on all NRHP editors is needed. --

1194:. When you cite to a webpage, that webpage must contain the information being cited. Thus, you must come up with a citation that directly supports your factoid. 290:

It helps... but confuses me further for a different reason... First you object to my using the NRHP.COM website (see the discussion thread entitled: "", above, and

2043:

I know I am supposed to keep my comments to one area... but I need to reply to this because we are experiencing a lack of communication as to what this debate is

3509:

obtaining NRIS information for verification have been described. Interestingly, access to the database via Elkman's interface is very consistent with the use of

842:

to insist on it. I am not going to engage in edit warring by reverting your most recent edit (as I was admonished for that as well) ... but, if you continue, I

417:

Given the title of this list, we have two obvious things to source. 1) that the buildings listed are notable, and 2) that the buildings listed are "masonic".

2816:

simply because we cannot find any better. You can't get around that by any amount of "dispute resolution" between three individuals here. If you want to change

704:

the process of replacing it with new acceptable sources. You simply do not want to accept the consensus (both here and at RSN) that the NRIS source is flawed.

2121: 2103: 2068: 2893:

No, we are not back to square one. You and I agreed to abide by MSJ's choice to settle this for this article, and we are waiting for that. And, there is a

2178: 2026: 2012: 1913:

to find a better way to cite NRIS. (I have plenty of experience with Doncram being intransigent, but I no longer see intransigence on this particular point.)

3137: 1669:

to a web page that supported the statement... but the page itself does not and never did directly support the information. And WP:V calls for sources to

1370: 3122: 2228:

to the NRIS Database. Pure and simple. I have preferences as to what should replace this citation... but I am quite open to alternatives that don't use

1570:

is fine. He is setting the rules for this mediation and I have agreed to that. If he says yes, I assume he will allow you a similar chance to comment.

3241: 3152: 2240: 1612: 768: 713: 616: 3588: 3565: 3256: 3198: 3180: 3166: 2924: 2910: 2684: 2547: 2492: 2469: 2399: 2347: 1594: 1579: 1564: 1549: 1535: 1495: 1423: 1404: 1307: 1278: 1263: 1218: 1203: 1173: 1155: 1021: 1006: 933: 911: 871: 811: 783: 687: 665: 640: 571: 536:

I have attempted on several occasions to substitute other sources that I find acceptable, and each time Doncram has reverted me. It is therefor up to

499: 480: 471:

longer exists - might be a problem. I could only view the title page although the whole thing was digitized. Going in the right direction, at least.

404: 343: 303: 283: 249: 183: 3547: 3522: 3388: 3305: 3274: 2725: 2136: 973:

in the book to look. You can not simply cite the book and say... "its somewhere in there... you look for it." More to the point, citing the website

962: 947: 753: 737: 424:. We can continue to work on replacing the poor NRIS source with acceptable NRP-Focus pages while we begin the discussion on the second criteria... 160: 3370: 3112: 3076: 3033: 2884: 1095: 1071: 1056: 1041: 2843: 2828: 2795: 1938: 383: 2367:

acceptable (we might have to tweak the exact wording, but I think the current dispute would be over)... The only hesitation would be factoring in

652: 291: 145: 2169:

Which is why I brought the other database up, if my approach is accepted as being verifiable, is there an equivalent route that can be used here?

596: 553: 2744: 2505:

I will not agree to never discuss this issue again (which is what you are asking me to do), especially as it relates to Knowledge as a whole. I

3476:

See above. In the context of this list -- and the uncontroversial nature of the National Register, the "bar" shouldn't need to be set very high.

2965:

4. To address the source contentions, if we have multiple sources, we can and should use them. We have a serious issue with the claimed RS not

1994: 1638:

might mention this fact, and I would consider that reliable... And, yes, we could cite the NRHP directly for that fact. (Note however, that we

274:

technically-minded, it has been established that more than one NRHP-listed place is not listed for its architecture, okay? Hope this helps. --

831: 3348: 855: 3261:

Shenanigans. Don, you have been claiming Elkman's as how you got your information, and now you turn around and claim it's not reliable and

1077:

editors change it to the current date of when they are adding an Elkman NRHP infobox or otherwise editing an article. So, assuming the URL

1749: 1186:, on the other hand, wish to add the factoid about the gable fronts.... However, there is a problem with your citation for this factoid... 821: 3556:

In other words... Doncram only accepts decisions that favor his views. Is it time to take this to the next level of dispute resolution?

2696:

Since MSJ has not chosen (yet)... I think we should continue our discussion... perhaps we can narrow down the choices. You have stated:

1872: 1714:

Doncram makes a very solid case in his statement in favor of using the NRIS as a source. What he does not do is make the case for using

670:

You are now over 3rrr... I have reported you. We understand that you don't think citations to NPS Focus are better... but everyone else

2517:

My first preference is to cite the NPS Focus pages for each property (so for example, the one for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge would read: "

2271:

Thanks, David Underdown, for bringing up that similar fixed/stable database example and your footnote to refer to it. That footnote is:

2949:

multiple instances, and multiple identical or similar records can exist for the same item. Nevertheless, there is a unique identifier

1906: 464: 1337: 1968: 1351: 294:)... now you point us to that same website to show why buildings are on the NRHP. So is it reliable or not? Can we use it or not? 125: 1472: 81: 76: 71: 59: 969:

To continue your analogy of the NRIS being like a book... when we cite a book, we have to give page info so that the reader knows

151:

To use your own words, "not just" also means that "some are", and that's exactly what the lede says. Nothing moronic about that.

3510: 3489: 2709: 2442: 1388: 365: 3406:), but that kind of link may not work forever, and it's easy enough to get the info by starting from the factfinder home page. 3338: 1790:, database edition of 2009-03-13. National Register of Historic Places. U.S. National Park Service. Database retrieved from 1624: 2771: 225: 221: 130: 2733:

I really don't see what the issue is with finding some way to agree what that descriptor is, and include it in the citation.

1754: 3375:

A(2): The editors at the US Cenus WikiProject do not know how to properly cite their information. (note: Pointing out that

2992: 391:

I think there is some justification for saying that NRHP listing confers notability... the problem we have been facing is

200:

NRHP-listed buildings are listed for their architecture. As I wrote it before, and is covered in language further above,

2310:

enter "Ipswich St Lawrence" in the "Parish or Location" text box and click "Search the database" for details of the bells

507: 2756:. No amount of dispute resolution between two or three individuals here will ever change that. <ref name="nris": --> 370:

There's no WP guideline or policy that indicates NRHP listing confers notability, so I have started a discussion on it

2375:

a downloaded copy of it? If not... then the citation would probably have to read something more along the lines of:

1877: 233: 1324:

Perhaps a solution to the NRIS cite which seems to be in a state of transition to "focus" would be the private site

1686:

reliable source, but I am not allowed to cite the Google search result itself and leave it at that. However, with

1654:

limited as to other information, but I believe it passes WP:RS and WP:V for the simple statement that the building

2356:

databases such as this are reliable or not (I honestly don't know)... I would find a citation along the lines of:

1949:

aspects to establishing a valid listing; building notability and clarity around the relationship with Freemasonry.

838:

acceptable (it does not pass WP:V). You have already been admonished about edit warring over this... and yet you

3325:

tool, and apparently Elkman doesn't want it used either. 3. NPS and NRIS each have issues for different reasons.

918:"National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2009-03-13. 1773:

status, date and more info, and c) is there value to adding references to NPS Focus. My answers are as follows:

3485: 47: 17: 3434:

All material in Knowledge articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not

1190:

does not say that Crane Hill is "gable fronted". In fact that web page does not mention Crane Hill or gables

165:

Also, it would help if you would actually cite the NRHP documents we are supposed to read... so that we know

2094:

in relation to ref 6 ("Database of historically important bells and bell frames") acceptable in your view?

270: 2698:

Blueboar's proposals posit the existence of a source named "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge", which does not exist

2017:

I quite agree, it is Blueboar and others on the RSN page who seem to be equating the two types of search.

1649:

Of the various choices for citing the NRHP directly, it is my belief that citations to NSP-Focus (such as

1182:

that statement. Since the NPS Focus page does support this specific statement, it is a proper citation.

884:, which is what you are citing. That is the front page to a search engine, and as such is not acceptable. 217: 2091: 802:

Petty... but OK... I have fixed the highlighted text to match the displayed title that is at the source.

1482:

seeing this proposal... If MSJ feels that this edit goes against the spirit of my subsequent agreement,

1246:

discusses the Crane Hill building. WP:V makes it very clear that a source must support the information

229: 209: 2457: 2368: 529: 237: 89: 38: 3265:

said it was OK to use? I don't think so. I think it's time to resolve the problem once and for all.

3224:

the citation pointed to did not actually contain the information being cited, and 3) the webpage you

1512:. I don't think a new discussion starting from scratch is needed. Blueboar, can you please comment in 1341: 2174: 2099: 2022: 1990: 744:

Good point... and not too difficult to fix (time consuming... but not difficult). I will get on it.

265: 830:

being disruptive. You have been told by multiple editors, both here and at at WP:RSN (specifically

2423: 2220:

the NRIS Database (regardless of whether we should). What I have been objecting to is the use of

1161: 1135: 412: 3024:

did not list server speed and up-time as attributes of verifiability or reliability of sources. --

1555:

and i will be only allowed to do so within our own separate statements, as done in arbitration. --

3438:, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything 3319: 455:

tie the buildings to Freemasonry, and explain what the tie to Freemasonry is or was. Any ideas?

213: 3443: 2059:

the NRIS Database. My concerns and objections have been centered purely on the latter question.

700:

It makes perfect sense to remove a source that everyone (except you) agrees is flawed... and to

3207:

I was not talking about Elkman... the flawed citation I refer to is: " <ref name="nris": -->

3092: 1347: 1333: 94:

In the absence of any further progress around inclusion criteria, can I suggest the following:

1921:

have the potential to lead to long-term improvements in how NRHP-related articles are sourced.

895:

itself. No one is saying that the NRIS is unreliable... they are saying that we can not cite

1431: 724:

format most decidedly does not do that. I'd expect to see something more along the lines of "

1897:

I agree with essentially everything that Doncram says after the heading "Current issues." --

984:

Look, what I am saying is very simple... while discussions are ongoing at RSN as to what we

3376: 2585:

I'll say my first preference, mainly as an accomodation to B, here would be this reference:

2170: 2095: 2018: 1986: 1233:

Doncram, my objection isn't to using the NRIS as a source... my objection is to the use of

8: 2898: 2783: 2624: 2574: 1840:

more than "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge". Clicking on that brings one to a page displaying:

1540:

Question to MSJapan... Are we allowed to comment on each other's statements in rebuttal?

3561: 3384: 3237: 3176: 3148: 3133: 2934: 2920: 2880: 2705: 2543: 2465: 2395: 2236: 2117: 2064: 1745: 1682:

that Google search result to find a reliable source about the building, and I can cite

1608: 1575: 1545: 1491: 1400: 1303: 1259: 1199: 1151: 1002: 988:

link to when citing the NRIS and NRHP... the one thing that is clear is that we should

907: 851: 807: 764: 749: 709: 683: 612: 592: 549: 495: 460: 400: 299: 236:

has "Historic Significance: Event", and "Area of Significance: Industry", as given in

179: 1456:

use a particular source. To avoid any unnecessary fooling about, note the following:

1269:

spreadsheet. It's the entry for this place in the database. That's all i can say. --

1032:

has taken it down or if this is just another one of their chronic website problems. --

678:

agrees that the NRIS page is flawed and must be replaced. Please stop re-adding it.

3584: 3543: 3334: 3301: 3270: 3252: 3194: 3162: 3108: 3072: 2988: 2906: 2839: 2791: 2680: 2521:, National Register of Historic Places - NPS Focus website, accessed July 19, 2010.") 2488: 2438: 2343: 2305: 1868: 1646:

to cite the NRHP directly, even if we all agree that doing so is an obvious choice).

1590: 1560: 1531: 1468: 1419: 1385: 1343: 1329: 1319: 1274: 1214: 1169: 1091: 1052: 1017: 958: 943: 929: 876:

The information may have come from the some document somewhere at NRIS... but it did

867: 779: 728:, National Register of Historic Places NPS Focus website, accessed July 19, 2010." -- 661: 636: 567: 476: 447:

that definition. I don't think the fact that the NRHP includes the word "Masonic" in

379: 339: 279: 245: 208:

collect NRHP applications as I have given directions to you). For specific example,

156: 141: 110:

Ownership - I think this is really weak, but there is potentially an argument for it.

3009: 1463:

So think about what you want to do, keep your hands to yourselves, and get to work.

3518: 3366: 3029: 2915:

Yes, you and I agreed... but obviously Jay has not. So we are back to square one.

2721: 2207:

In reply to Orlady's question... To be honest, I keep going back and forth on the "

2132: 2008: 1934: 1902: 1366: 1325: 1067: 1037: 733: 541: 3442:, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an 2856:

Can this article cite the NRIS database, or is it precluded under WP:V and WP:RS?

2529:- National Register Information System database as of 1/13/09 - accessed through 2381:- National Register Information System database as of 1/13/09 - accessed through 1727:

is unacceptable here, it will probably mean that it is unacceptable in all those

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2974: 2801: 3101:

The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources

2456:... pending further discussion, elsewhere, on that issue. The second concerns 3557: 3435: 3410: 3380: 3233: 3216:". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2009-03-13.") 3172: 3144: 3129: 3063: 3051: 2916: 2894: 2876: 2779: 2740: 2701: 2570: 2539: 2461: 2391: 2371:... have any of those who want to use the NRIS database as a source actually 2232: 2113: 2109: 2060: 1964: 1918: 1833: 1741: 1604: 1571: 1541: 1523: 1518: 1509: 1487: 1396: 1358: 1299: 1255: 1195: 1147: 998: 903: 847: 803: 760: 745: 705: 679: 627: 608: 588: 584: 545: 491: 456: 396: 295: 175: 121: 3580: 3539: 3330: 3297: 3266: 3248: 3190: 3158: 3104: 3068: 3059: 3047: 3021: 2984: 2902: 2835: 2821: 2809: 2787: 2676: 2484: 2434: 2339: 1864: 1586: 1556: 1527: 1464: 1449: 1415: 1381: 1270: 1210: 1165: 1087: 1048: 1013: 954: 939: 925: 863: 775: 657: 632: 563: 518: 517:

The website is no longer supported and no longer works, it thus fails both

472: 375: 335: 275: 241: 152: 137: 3492:

may be able to assist in obtaining material that is not easily accessible.

2608: 2530: 2382: 2047:. I think Doncam and Orlady are conflating two questions ... the first is 1478:

I will agree... with the notation that I just made an edit to the article

3514: 3456: 3427: 3362: 3096: 3055: 3025: 3017: 2817: 2813: 2805: 2764: 2760: 2753: 2717: 2128: 2004: 1930: 1926: 1898: 1362: 1357:

The possibility of citing that site has been discussed at some length at

1063: 1033: 729: 522: 3054:

clarified he no longer disputes that. I don't see anything specific in

2301: 1448:

what source they want to use, why they want to use it, and how it meets

196:

The sentence as written implies that only some buildings world-wide but

2825: 2768: 204:

NRHP-listed ones are listed for their architecture, which is different.

1141:

While discussions as to what we should cite continue at RSN... yes, I

2675:

I would accept MSJapan's choice among these alternatives. Thanks. --

1285:

Actually, if you were staring at a spread sheet with 85,000 rows, it

434:

I still think that to do that we will need to better clarify what we

2051:

we can use the NRIS database to obtain information ... the other is

1791: 1083: 1078: 1028: 2736: 1960: 1444:

Doncram and Blueboar will take a new subsection below, and explain

117: 2969:

allowing direct citation, so the RS violates policy (and thus is

264:

For one further example already covered in the list-article, the

3446:, and that the source directly support the material in question. 2758:

is not a valid citation. Nor is "<ref name="nris_temp2": -->

1237:

as a citation. These are different things completely. Citing

3228:

was not actually the webpage where you found the information (

2362:- National Register Information System database as of 1/13/09" 2962:

requiring a third-party interface, but it may be unavoidable.

3361:

A: Policy does not actually forbid that kind of citation. --

220:

shows that NRIS lists Architecture then Social History for

3091:

In further response to item 4, here is a complete copy of

2302:"Database of historically important bells and bell frames" 3468:

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context.

3213: 2651: 2229: 2221: 1813: 1724: 1715: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1687: 1662: 1295: 1291: 1238: 1234: 1187: 993: 974: 919: 896: 881: 224:, which is a different emphasis. Also different is the 2630:

My second preference would be the usual NRIS reference:

3157:

Duplicative discussion section count now around 60. --

1377: 1062:

retrieval date for full traceability of the source. --

232:). Here's one without "Architecture" appearing: the 451:

name for a building is enough. We need sources that

1792:

National Register Information System Download Center

1084:

National Register Information System Download Center

1029:

National Register Information System Download Center

3379:has never been an excepted argument on Knowledge.) 1711:information found in a specific book in a library. 605:

Link to NPS Focus page for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge

1777:a) A probably acceptable revised NRIS footnote is: 1376:Another possible interim solution would be to use 1298:isn't the page labeled "Crane Hill Masonic Hall". 2958: 1651:this one for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge in Arizona 583:an acceptable citation. Read the discussions at 1436:This situation has gone on long enough, and it 832:WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#www.nr.nps.gov 3232:got the information from Elkman's webpage). 2897:discussion open and productive discussion at 1336:) 01:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) For example the 846:raise your disruptive behavior with admins. 834:) that the NRIS page you keep linking to is 603:directly). To give an example... see this 2808:demands. We don't accept sources that fail 2782:but also there is productive discussion at 1513: 1505: 431:that these are indeed "Masonic" buildings. 2598: 1603:OK... in that case... I think I am done. 1338:New Masonic Building and Oriental Theater 99:School, or the Masonic Homes in Dunblane. 1781: 228:being listed for just Architecture (per 3511:Knowledge:WikiProject Resource Exchange 3189:mainspace links to Elkman's website. -- 2954:which no one seems to like as a source. 2531:http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php 2383:http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php 490:in this article! This is frustrating! 14: 2652:"National Register Information System" 2509:agree to use a set citation format in 1814:"National Register Information System" 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3440:challenged or likely to be challenged 226:Masonic Temple (Gainesville, Florida) 222:Masonic Temple (Pine Bluff, Arkansas) 3214:National Register Information System 3123:But is Elkman.net a reliable source? 2658:. National Park Service. 2009-03-13. 2656:National Register of Historic Places 2605:National Register Information System 1820:. National Park Service. 2009-03-13. 1818:National Register of Historic Places 1788:National Register Information System 1326:National Register of Historic Places 25: 2644: 1806: 1661:The same, however, is not true for 544:, to find a reliable replacement. 23: 2672:22,000 instances of the usual one. 1508:above, and the discussion open at 24: 3604: 3143:I have raised this issue at RSN. 1079:http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrdown1.htm 234:Masonic Lodge (Grandin, Missouri) 3353:) that points to the following: 2767:, this is not the place for it. 1690:we are not even citing a search 674:. More to the point, every one 212:shows that the NRIS listing for 29: 3513:as a verification resource. -- 2824:, it won't be happening here. 2294: 1698:of the search engine. Citing 887:I think you are confusing the 366:Notability is an assumption... 114:Any other potential criteria? 18:Talk:List of Masonic buildings 13: 1: 3490:WikiProject Resource Exchange 3185:What 500? I am not aware of 1706:. I am convinced that citing 131:inaccurate claims being added 2875:Are their any other issues? 2538:I await your preferences... 1694:- instead we are citing the 1378:the Historic Places Database 1134:Once again... you engage in 7: 2304:. Church Building Council ( 2092:St Lawrence Church, Ipswich 916:Umm, the citation displays 508:Unacceptable source removed 10: 3609: 3500:As some of us have stated 1975:Comment by David Underdown 1856:contributing buildings: 1 1160:You suffer extremely from 3589:04:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 3566:22:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC) 3548:16:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC) 3523:15:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC) 3389:13:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC) 3371:12:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC) 3339:04:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC) 3306:16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC) 3275:04:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC) 3257:13:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 3242:12:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 3199:15:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC) 3181:15:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC) 3167:15:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC) 3153:18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 3138:17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 3113:15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC) 3077:15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC) 3034:17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 2993:15:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 2925:14:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 2911:13:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 2885:13:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 2844:07:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 2829:06:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 2796:06:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 2772:05:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 2745:06:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 2726:01:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 2710:01:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 2685:13:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 2548:21:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2493:18:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 2470:17:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 2443:16:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 2400:02:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 2348:20:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 2241:15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 2212:focusing on the issue of 2179:15:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 2137:15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 2122:14:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 2104:14:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 2069:14:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 2027:14:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 2013:13:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 2000:Reply to David Underdown: 1995:13:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1969:20:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1939:02:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC) 1907:04:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1873:22:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1750:05:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1676:this Google search result 1613:05:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1595:02:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1585:statements are complete. 1580:01:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1565:00:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1550:23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1536:18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1496:18:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1473:17:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1424:15:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC) 1405:16:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 1389:16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 1371:02:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1352:01:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1308:20:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1279:17:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1264:13:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1219:10:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 1204:17:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1174:16:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1156:15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1096:18:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1072:17:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1057:17:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1042:16:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1022:14:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 1007:14:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 963:14:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 948:14:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 934:14:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 912:14:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 872:13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 856:12:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 812:14:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 784:13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 769:13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 754:13:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 738:12:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 726:Masonic Temple in Kingman 714:15:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC) 688:15:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) 666:15:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC) 641:15:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC) 617:13:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC) 597:02:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC) 572:01:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC) 554:15:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC) 500:23:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 481:22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 465:15:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 405:12:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC) 384:06:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC) 344:03:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC) 304:00:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC) 284:22:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 266:Hiram Masonic Lodge No. 7 250:19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 184:19:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 161:15:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 146:14:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 126:11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 2527:Crane Hill Masonic Lodge 2519:Crane Hill Masonic Lodge 2390:or something like that. 1294:instead of that page... 2379:Crane Hill Masonic Hall 2360:Crane Hill Masonic Hall 1514:#More about NRIS source 1506:#More about NRIS source 1340:will be found on it at 214:Yell Masonic Lodge Hall 174:or where to find them. 3001:In response to item 2: 1702:is the same as citing 1446:clearly and succinctly 920:http://www.nr.nps.gov/ 880:come from the webpage 822:More about NRIS source 3050:of NRIS, but has, at 1762:(My characterization) 1517:other editors at the 1138:. Please get a clue. 443:that these buildings 374:at the village pump. 42:of past discussions. 3486:No original research 3212:(which appears as: " 2308:). 29 October 2007. 1625:Blueboar's Statement 992:link to the webpage 329:NRHP-listed and was 238:its NRHP.COM mention 2945:the citation given. 2458:WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT 2369:WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT 2352:Taking no stand on 1755:Doncram's statement 530:WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT 427:We need sources to 3377:Other stuff exists 2863:should we cite it? 1878:Comments by others 218:This NRHP.CoM page 210:this NRHP.COM page 90:Inclusion criteria 3436:original research 2306:Church of England 1883:Comment by Orlady 1162:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 1136:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 902:citing the NRIS. 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3600: 3352: 2660: 2659: 2648: 2612: 2602: 2313: 2312: 2298: 1822: 1821: 1810: 1795: 1785: 826:Doncram, please 413:Sourcing part II 271:NRHP.COM reports 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3608: 3607: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3444:inline citation 3346: 3322: 3125: 3093:wp:SOURCEACCESS 2937: 2650: 2649: 2645: 2635: 2603: 2599: 2589: 2428:We are getting 2426: 2300: 2299: 2295: 2275: 2171:David Underdown 2096:David Underdown 2019:David Underdown 1987:David Underdown 1880: 1857: 1845: 1825: 1812: 1811: 1807: 1798: 1794:on, 2009-03-15. 1786: 1782: 1757: 1627: 1486:may revert it. 1434: 1322: 824: 510: 415: 368: 133: 92: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3606: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3551: 3550: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3495: 3494: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3471: 3470: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3449: 3448: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3407: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3355: 3354: 3321: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3217: 3210: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3124: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3013: 3005: 2980: 2979: 2963: 2955: 2946: 2936: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2888: 2887: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2864: 2857: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2804:was, and what 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2734: 2731: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2673: 2661: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2634: 2632: 2631: 2628: 2613: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2588: 2586: 2583: 2579: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2522: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2480: 2473: 2472: 2425: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2335: 2314: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2274: 2272: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2230:www.rn.nps.gov 2222:www.rn.nps.gov 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 1981: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1945:Comment by ALR 1942: 1941: 1922: 1914: 1885: 1884: 1879: 1876: 1854: 1842: 1824: 1823: 1804: 1802: 1797: 1796: 1779: 1774: 1771: 1769:Current issues 1763: 1756: 1753: 1725:www.rn.nps.gov 1716:www.rn.nps.gov 1708:www.rn.nps.gov 1704:www.google.com 1700:www.rn.nps.gov 1688:www.rn.nps.gov 1663:www.rn.nps.gov 1626: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1499: 1498: 1433: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1408: 1407: 1374: 1373: 1321: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1296:www.rn.nps.gov 1292:www.rn.nps.gov 1283: 1282: 1281: 1239:www.rn.nps.gov 1235:www.rn.nps.gov 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1188:www.rn.nps.gov 1139: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 994:www.nr.nps.gov 982: 975:www.rn.nps.gov 897:www.nr.nps.gov 885: 882:www.rn.nps.gov 823: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 694: 646: 645: 644: 643: 620: 619: 577: 576: 575: 574: 534: 533: 526: 509: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 414: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 395:NRHP listing. 393:substantiating 367: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 307: 306: 257: 256: 255: 254: 253: 252: 205: 189: 188: 187: 186: 132: 129: 112: 111: 107: 106: 101: 100: 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3605: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3536: 3535: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3493: 3491: 3487: 3482: 3481: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3469: 3466: 3465: 3458: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3447: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3432: 3431: 3429: 3428:Verifiability 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3412: 3411:United States 3408: 3405: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3350: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3326: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3263:somebody else 3260: 3259: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3218: 3215: 3211: 3206: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3014: 3011: 3006: 3002: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2947: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2869: 2866:If not, what 2865: 2862: 2858: 2855: 2854: 2851: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2755: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2735: 2732: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2657: 2653: 2647: 2633: 2629: 2626: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2601: 2587: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2532: 2528: 2523: 2520: 2516: 2515: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2481: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2431: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2384: 2380: 2377: 2376: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2361: 2358: 2357: 2355: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2297: 2273: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2210: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2001: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1983: 1982: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1944: 1943: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1923: 1920: 1915: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1895: 1894: 1892: 1882: 1881: 1875: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1860: 1853: 1849: 1841: 1837: 1835: 1829: 1819: 1815: 1809: 1805: 1803: 1793: 1789: 1784: 1780: 1778: 1775: 1770: 1766: 1761: 1752: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1730: 1726: 1721: 1717: 1712: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1659: 1658:NRHP-listed. 1657: 1652: 1647: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1631: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1522:consider the 1520: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1457: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1442: 1439: 1432:Solution time 1425: 1421: 1417: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1342: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1144: 1140: 1137: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1080: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1030: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1000: 995: 991: 987: 983: 980: 976: 972: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 960: 956: 951: 950: 949: 945: 941: 937: 936: 935: 931: 927: 923: 921: 915: 914: 913: 909: 905: 901: 898: 894: 890: 886: 883: 879: 875: 874: 873: 869: 865: 860: 859: 858: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 813: 809: 805: 801: 785: 781: 777: 772: 771: 770: 766: 762: 757: 756: 755: 751: 747: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 735: 731: 727: 722: 717: 716: 715: 711: 707: 703: 699: 698: 695: 691: 690: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 668: 667: 663: 659: 654: 650: 649: 648: 647: 642: 638: 634: 629: 624: 623: 622: 621: 618: 614: 610: 606: 601: 600: 599: 598: 594: 590: 586: 582: 573: 569: 565: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 551: 547: 543: 539: 531: 527: 524: 520: 516: 515: 514: 501: 497: 493: 489: 484: 483: 482: 478: 474: 469: 468: 467: 466: 462: 458: 454: 450: 446: 442: 437: 432: 430: 425: 423: 418: 406: 402: 398: 394: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 381: 377: 373: 349:limitations). 347: 346: 345: 341: 337: 332: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 281: 277: 272: 267: 263: 262: 261: 260: 259: 258: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 206: 203: 199: 195: 194: 193: 192: 191: 190: 185: 181: 177: 173: 168: 164: 163: 162: 158: 154: 150: 149: 148: 147: 143: 139: 128: 127: 123: 119: 115: 109: 108: 103: 102: 97: 96: 95: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3505: 3502:ad infinitum 3501: 3483: 3467: 3439: 3433: 3356: 3327: 3323: 3262: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3186: 3126: 3100: 3000: 2981: 2970: 2966: 2950: 2938: 2867: 2860: 2751: 2697: 2695: 2655: 2646: 2604: 2600: 2565: 2526: 2510: 2506: 2453: 2449: 2429: 2427: 2378: 2372: 2359: 2353: 2309: 2296: 2225: 2217: 2213: 2208: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 1999: 1896: 1890: 1887: 1886: 1861: 1858: 1850: 1846: 1838: 1830: 1826: 1817: 1808: 1799: 1787: 1783: 1776: 1768: 1767: 1759: 1758: 1737: 1733: 1728: 1719: 1718:as a proper 1713: 1695: 1691: 1683: 1679: 1670: 1666: 1660: 1655: 1648: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1483: 1479: 1459: 1458: 1453: 1445: 1443: 1437: 1435: 1375: 1344:clariosophic 1330:clariosophic 1323: 1286: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1191: 1183: 1179: 1142: 989: 985: 978: 970: 917: 899: 892: 888: 877: 843: 839: 835: 827: 825: 701: 675: 671: 580: 579:No... it is 578: 537: 535: 511: 487: 452: 448: 444: 441:substantiate 440: 435: 433: 429:substantiate 428: 426: 422:as buildings 421: 419: 416: 392: 369: 330: 201: 197: 171: 166: 134: 116: 113: 93: 65: 43: 37: 2859:If we can, 36:This is an 2609:Elkman.net 1927:notability 1760:Background 1678:... I can 3504:, anyone 3460:Register. 3010:this link 2951:somewhere 2424:Resolved? 1740:article. 1696:front end 1642:actually 1454:shouldn't 1320:NRIS cite 891:with the 653:this edit 542:WP:BURDEN 331:de-listed 292:this diff 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3558:Blueboar 3381:Blueboar 3320:Decision 3234:Blueboar 3173:Blueboar 3145:Blueboar 3130:Blueboar 2917:Blueboar 2877:Blueboar 2702:Blueboar 2540:Blueboar 2462:Blueboar 2430:somewhat 2392:Blueboar 2233:Blueboar 2226:citation 2114:Blueboar 2061:Blueboar 1742:Blueboar 1720:citation 1671:directly 1605:Blueboar 1572:Blueboar 1542:Blueboar 1488:Blueboar 1461:editing. 1397:Blueboar 1300:Blueboar 1256:Blueboar 1248:directly 1196:Blueboar 1148:Blueboar 1086:on ." -- 999:Blueboar 904:Blueboar 889:citation 848:Blueboar 840:continue 804:Blueboar 761:Blueboar 746:Blueboar 706:Blueboar 680:Blueboar 609:Blueboar 589:Blueboar 546:Blueboar 492:Blueboar 488:anything 457:Blueboar 453:directly 397:Blueboar 296:Blueboar 176:Blueboar 3581:doncram 3540:doncram 3457:notable 3331:MSJapan 3298:doncram 3267:MSJapan 3249:doncram 3222:webpage 3191:doncram 3159:doncram 3105:doncram 3095:within 3069:doncram 2985:MSJapan 2975:WP:NPOV 2959:CNN.com 2903:doncram 2899:wt:NRHP 2870:we use? 2836:doncram 2802:WP:RS/N 2788:doncram 2784:wt:NRHP 2677:doncram 2625:wt:NRHP 2575:wt:NRHP 2485:doncram 2479:source. 2454:for now 2435:MSJapan 2354:whether 2340:doncram 2209:whether 2049:whether 1865:doncram 1587:MSJapan 1557:doncram 1528:doncram 1465:MSJapan 1416:doncram 1382:Polaron 1271:doncram 1254:book." 1211:doncram 1166:doncram 1088:doncram 1049:doncram 1014:doncram 955:doncram 940:MSJapan 926:doncram 864:doncram 776:doncram 658:doncram 633:doncram 564:doncram 473:MSJapan 376:MSJapan 336:doncram 276:doncram 242:doncram 153:MSJapan 138:doncram 39:archive 3515:Orlady 3363:Orlady 3064:wp:SPS 3052:wp:RSN 3026:Orlady 2967:easily 2895:wp:RSN 2826:Jayjg 2780:wp:RSN 2769:Jayjg 2718:Orlady 2571:wp:RSN 2564:I did 2129:Orlady 2110:WP:RSN 2005:Orlady 1931:Orlady 1919:WP:RSN 1899:Orlady 1834:wp:RSN 1692:result 1524:wp:RSN 1519:wp:RSN 1510:wp:RSN 1480:before 1363:Orlady 1359:WP:RSN 1192:at all 1064:Orlady 1034:Orlady 986:should 893:source 730:Orlady 628:wp:RSN 585:WP:RSN 540:, per 3226:cited 3060:wp:RS 3048:wp:RS 3022:WP:RS 2935:break 2822:WP:RS 2810:WP:RS 2450:think 2224:as a 2045:about 1957:that. 1736:, at 1729:other 1640:don't 1450:WP:RS 1287:would 1143:would 1082:from 971:where 702:begin 519:WP:RS 449:their 167:which 16:< 3585:talk 3562:talk 3544:talk 3519:talk 3385:talk 3367:talk 3351:|2}} 3335:talk 3302:talk 3271:talk 3253:talk 3238:talk 3195:talk 3177:talk 3163:talk 3149:talk 3134:talk 3109:talk 3097:wp:V 3073:talk 3056:wp:V 3030:talk 3020:and 3018:WP:V 2989:talk 2921:talk 2907:talk 2881:talk 2840:talk 2820:and 2818:WP:V 2814:WP:V 2812:and 2806:WP:V 2792:talk 2765:WP:V 2761:WP:V 2754:WP:V 2741:talk 2722:talk 2706:talk 2681:talk 2573:and 2544:talk 2511:this 2507:will 2489:talk 2466:talk 2439:talk 2396:talk 2373:seen 2344:talk 2237:talk 2218:cite 2175:talk 2133:talk 2118:talk 2100:talk 2065:talk 2057:cite 2023:talk 2009:talk 1991:talk 1965:talk 1935:talk 1903:talk 1869:talk 1746:talk 1738:this 1734:here 1684:that 1644:have 1609:talk 1591:talk 1576:talk 1561:talk 1546:talk 1532:talk 1492:talk 1469:talk 1438:will 1420:talk 1401:talk 1386:Talk 1367:talk 1348:talk 1334:talk 1304:talk 1275:talk 1260:talk 1252:this 1215:talk 1200:talk 1180:only 1170:talk 1152:talk 1092:talk 1068:talk 1053:talk 1038:talk 1018:talk 1003:talk 959:talk 944:talk 930:talk 908:talk 900:when 868:talk 852:talk 844:will 828:stop 808:talk 780:talk 765:talk 750:talk 734:talk 710:talk 684:talk 676:else 672:does 662:talk 637:talk 613:talk 593:talk 568:talk 550:talk 523:WP:V 521:and 496:talk 477:talk 461:talk 436:mean 401:talk 380:talk 372:here 340:talk 300:talk 280:talk 246:talk 230:this 202:some 180:talk 157:talk 142:talk 122:talk 3506:can 3230:you 3187:any 3062:or 3058:or 2978:on. 2971:not 2868:can 2861:how 2737:ALR 2671:--> 2566:not 2216:to 2214:how 2055:to 2053:how 1961:ALR 1891:for 1680:use 1667:get 1244:one 1184:You 990:not 979:not 977:is 878:not 836:not 651:In 581:not 538:him 445:fit 198:all 172:are 118:ALR 3587:) 3564:) 3546:) 3521:) 3387:) 3369:) 3357:. 3349:GR 3347:{{ 3337:) 3304:) 3273:) 3255:) 3240:) 3197:) 3179:) 3165:) 3151:) 3136:) 3111:) 3075:) 3032:) 2991:) 2923:) 2909:) 2883:) 2842:) 2794:) 2743:) 2724:) 2708:) 2683:) 2654:. 2546:) 2533:") 2491:) 2468:) 2448:I 2441:) 2398:) 2346:) 2239:) 2177:) 2135:) 2120:) 2112:. 2102:) 2067:) 2025:) 2011:) 2003:-- 1993:) 1967:) 1937:) 1905:) 1871:) 1816:. 1748:) 1656:is 1636:it 1611:) 1593:) 1578:) 1563:) 1548:) 1534:) 1494:) 1484:he 1471:) 1422:) 1403:) 1384:| 1369:) 1350:) 1306:) 1277:) 1262:) 1217:) 1202:) 1172:) 1154:) 1094:) 1070:) 1055:) 1040:) 1020:) 1005:) 961:) 946:) 932:) 922:." 910:) 870:) 854:) 810:) 782:) 767:) 752:) 736:) 712:) 686:) 664:) 639:) 615:) 595:) 587:. 570:) 552:) 498:) 479:) 463:) 403:) 382:) 342:) 302:) 282:) 248:) 182:) 159:) 144:) 124:) 3583:( 3560:( 3542:( 3517:( 3383:( 3365:( 3345:( 3333:( 3300:( 3269:( 3251:( 3236:( 3209:" 3193:( 3175:( 3161:( 3147:( 3132:( 3107:( 3071:( 3028:( 2987:( 2919:( 2905:( 2879:( 2838:( 2790:( 2739:( 2720:( 2704:( 2679:( 2611:. 2542:( 2487:( 2464:( 2437:( 2394:( 2385:" 2342:( 2235:( 2173:( 2131:( 2116:( 2098:( 2063:( 2021:( 2007:( 1989:( 1963:( 1933:( 1901:( 1893:. 1867:( 1744:( 1607:( 1589:( 1574:( 1559:( 1544:( 1530:( 1490:( 1467:( 1418:( 1399:( 1365:( 1346:( 1332:( 1302:( 1273:( 1258:( 1213:( 1198:( 1168:( 1150:( 1090:( 1066:( 1051:( 1036:( 1016:( 1001:( 957:( 942:( 928:( 906:( 866:( 850:( 806:( 778:( 763:( 748:( 732:( 719:" 708:( 682:( 660:( 635:( 611:( 591:( 566:( 548:( 532:. 525:. 494:( 475:( 459:( 399:( 378:( 338:( 298:( 278:( 244:( 178:( 155:( 140:( 120:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index