![]() | National Register of Historic Places Project‑class | ||||||
|
This page is slow to load or scroll. Would it be better to move the list of each county out to articles for each state so the page loads better? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I use the progress maps a lot, but I think there is an additional way to present information that would be more helpful. In addition to the current maps, it would be good to have maps indicitating the number of unphotographed places (or places without articles) in a county. Very often I look at a blue county and there are only one or two places that need photographs (or articles). It would help planning photo trips if this information was displayed on maps, i.e. there is one place in this county that needs a photo whereas there are nine in this other county. This would be less useful for articles, but it could help as someone familiar with a certain region could use it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The "Net quality" map reflects a linear combination of measurements, specifically by this formula:
netQuality = 0.75*articlequality+0.25*imagequality
where 1. articlequality = (startorhigher+0.5*stubs+0.25*unassessed-0.5*untagged-0.75*NRISonly)/listings 2. imagequality = images/listings
which I have been wanting to record, and just happened across. This oughta be reflected in note on the page methinks. The weights were set judgmentally, and there could be alternatives NetQuality2 and NetQuality3, say, defined differently. It's been noted that "netQuality" can go down by development of more articles in a given state or other area, counterintuitively sometimes.
Presenting it differently:
netQuality = [.75*(-.75*Articled +1.25*MultiCited +.5*RatedStart) + .25*Illustrated ] / listings
netQuality = [.75*(-.25*Articled +.75*MultiCited +.5*RatedStart) + .25*Illustrated ] / listings
or, simplifying:
netQuality = (-.5625*Articled + .9375*MultiCited + .375*RatedStart + .25*Illustrated ) / listings
netQuality = (-.1875*Articled + .5625*MultiCited + .375*RatedStart + .25*Illustrated ) / listings
where Articled = number of articles started in the county or other area (no matter what their quality) MultiCited = number of these which have a non-NRIS inline citation included (usually in addition to NRIS being a source) RatedStart = number of these which have been assigned "Start" rating in Talk page NRHP WikiProject banners Illustrated = number of listings which have any file in their county row of list-article (whether it is a picture of the NRHP or not) listings = number of NRHP-listed places in the given area
Note that -.5625 + .9375 + .375 + .25 = 1.0. that -.1875 + .5625 + .375 + .25 = 1.0. But in fact what is reported in the table and shows on the map uses a scale from 0 percent to 100 percent, rather than ranging from -.5625[-.1875] to 1. Perhaps any netQuality measure below zero is truncated upward to zero, then whatever is the netQuality average for an area is reported as if it is a percent measure?
This presentation of the formula highlights incremental effects upon average netQuality for NRHPs of a given area, e.g.
Or, more simply:
The effect depends on how many listings are in the area. For a county area that has 100 listings:
That's how it seems to work, AFAICT. -- do ncr am 07:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
netQuality = (-.5625*2 + .9375*2 + .375*1 + .25*2 ) / 5
= (-1.125 + 1.875 + .375 +.5 ) / 5
= 1.625 / 5
= .325
netQuality = (-.1875*2 + .5625*2 + .375*1 + .25*2 ) / 5 = (-.375 + 1.125 + .375 +.5 ) / 5 = 1.625 / 5 = .325
netQuality = (-.5625*1 + 0 + 0 + .25*1 ) / 1
= -.3125
(which would be rounded up to 0.0)
netQuality = (-.1875*1 + 0 + 0 + .25*1 ) / 1 = -.0625 (which would be rounded up to 6.3)
Looking at the actual code, I think there is some error in the programming which I will call "subtle" because it is not obvious; i don't see where it goes wrong. The programming is trying to implement the formula as above, including that it rounds up to 0.0 any netQuality calculated to be below zero. Perhaps there is some issue with lagged values of variables, or how the sequence of operations deals with a negative value
The relevant code section in User:Dudemanfellabra/UpdateNRHPProgress.js is:
// net quality if (temp.Total==0) { str="-" } else { str=temp.StartPlus+0.5*temp.Stubs+0.5*temp.Unassessed-0.5*temp.Untagged-0.75*temp.NRISonly str=Math.round((0.75*str/temp.Total+0.25*temp.Illustrated/temp.Total)*1000)/10 if (str<0) str=0 var test=str.toString().indexOf(".") if (test==-1 && str!=100 && str!=0) str+=".0" str+="%"
where for Archer County, Texas
temp.StartPlus = 0 temp.Stubs = 0 temp.Unassessed = 0 temp.Untagged = 0 temp.NRISonly = 1
so the calculation should basically go:
str1 = -.75 str2 = round( ( [.75*-.75] + .25 ) * 1000 ) / 10 = round( ( -.5625 + .25 ) * 1000 ) / 10 = round( ( -.3125 ) * 1000 ) / 10 = round( -312.5 ) / 10 = -31.3 = 0 (truncate up to zero) = 0.0% (formatting)
but instead what is reported is 6.3%. So something is off; the program is not always accomplishing what is intended, as far as I can tell. From checking a few more counties, I have the impression this applies when "netQuality" is going to be on the low side, anyhow, though I can't generalize with confidence. Here it seems the result is off by 6.3 percent, and maybe it is only ever off by a small amount. -- do ncr am 00:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This is on the main page:
netQuality=[0.75*(StartPlus+0.5*Stubs+0.25*Unassessed-0.5*Untagged-0.75*NRISonly) + 0.25*Illustrated]/listings*100
This formula doesn't make much sense to me: (1) An article being unassessed raises the quality, (2) a NRIS-only stub is worse than no article at all. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
<ref>[https://focus.nps.gov/GetAsset?assetID=34669b9a-ac90-4c37-9274-c41e7a553743]</ref>
<ref name=nrhpdoc>{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: or Registration: |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate= }} with {{NRHP url|id=|photos=y|title=photos}}</ref>
<ref name=nrhpdoc>{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=80001251}}|title=Thematic National Register Nomination - Georgia Courthouses: Upson County Courthouse |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date=1980 |accessdate=January 7, 2016 }}</ref>
var NRHPstatsAuto = 'false'; // per wt:NRHPPROGRESS#Untagged articles, line 1 of 2 importScript('User:Dudemanfellabra/NRHPstats.js'); // per wt:NRHPPROGRESS#Untagged articles, line 2 of 2
importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); //DYKcheck tool --this is Vector skin specific
I think that we are pretty much in agreement that a photo of a site on the county listing counts 0.25 of the total 1.0. But how about a slight change - a photo on the county list page counts 0.2 and if there is a link to more photos at commons (commonscat=) add 0.05, for a total of 0.25. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The NRHP forms usually go into a lot of architectural detail about a building - much of which a non-specialist (including me) doesn't understand. I'd rather see what it looks like. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The problems with NRIS are that (1) there are outright errors, and (2) the contents of some of the fields are hopelessly vague as used. Here's my catalogue of issue types (based on reading several thousand nominations):
Note that these issues span just about every field in the NRIS database. Literally the only thing I consider to be accurate in the NRIS are the listing date and refnum, and probably the historic function/subfunction fields (which I mostly ignore). I'm now even wondering about the refnum, because I uncovered an error in a recent weekly list where the refnum was wrong.
BTW, I also think pictures are more valuable than descriptions, assuming you can capture the architecture (or other key features) well enough. However, in the absence of that sort of photo, and in the presence of ambiguous address information, an accurate description of the listing location and features is actually useful to a photo hound who hasn't necessarily bothered to look up the nomination. When I go on photo drives, I have notes with architectural features and location info (side of road, nearby landmarks, orientation of gables and chimneys, basic style), all from the form. Including this information in an article, along with a basic historical summary, is usually enough to make it Start-level.
Please articulate proposed changes to the information presented on the progress pages at WT:NRHP, which probably has a wider audience. Magic ♪piano 14:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
There may be some support (in discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Coordinates conversions, and should we be footnoting coordinates?) for beginning to identify the quality of coordinates of NRHP-listed places, perhaps by use of draft template {{ NRHPcoord}} which would follow the {{ coord}} in NRHP county list-article table rows and in NRHP places' NRHP infoboxes.
Suppose improved/checked coordinates are identified by a string "c-improved=yes" or "c-improved=USERNAME" within the NRHPcoord template. Then it would be possible for the NRHPprogress javascript program to count those instances and add two columns to the NRHPprogress page, one for the count of "improved" coordinates on the county list-article pages and one for the count of coordinates in NRHP place articles' infoboxes.
It would be done in the UpdateNRHPProgress.js script for the list-articles in the same way that number illustrated is counted (done by searching for "image=" + any following value, but now also search for "c-improved=" + any following value), and for the NRHP places in the same way that NRIS-only articles are counted (done by searching for Category:All articles sourced only to NRIS, but now search for something like Category:NRHP coordinates improved that would be set by the NRHPcoord template if relevant). Then the script could also calculate a percentage of coordinates improved, and write the 3 resulting values as new columns in the NRHPprogress page.
I just want to note that this looks feasible to do, programming-wise. -- do ncr am 15:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a way to get old static progress maps (i.e. not the animated GIFs)? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I just updated the statistics - how do you update the maps? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
mw.loader.load('/?title=User:Dudemanfellabra/NRHPmap.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); // try NRHP map maker
Last weekend I got several photos in three counties in S.C, starting at the southern tip of the state and going up along the Georgia border:
Previously Jasper was a shade of red and the other two where shades of blue. The maps were updated today, and the colors changed, but there seems to be an error.
But the colors of Jasper and Hampton seem to be revered in the illustrated map. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Santa_Fe_County,_New_Mexico. Maybe adding Pecos National Historical Park to Santa Fe county list will mess up NRHPprogress runs, i am not sure. Maybe it shouldn't have an entry there (for discussion), so I didn't add it to duplication footnote at National Register of Historic Places listings in New Mexico. -- do ncr am 21:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Doncram: You are going to verify that you didn't break the scripts that update this page after making alterations to it, yes? (If you are not prepared to do that, kindly revert your changes. I, who have been running those updates, am not in a position to do so for the next month.) Magic ♪piano 06:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Someone posted on my talk page, so I got an email and logged on to find this. This is dumb. Would you comment out the lead of an article? Every page deserves an introduction. If we followed your logic, we'd just delete the entire project page WP:NRHP--no reason people need to know what this wikiproject is about, right? How about WP:NRHPHELP, WP:NRHPMOS, etc.? Let's just let everyone guess what every page is for. Hell, let's delete the entire WP namespace and just have articles. But really if you had your way, we wouldn't even have articles--just two sentence substubs on every topic. Your inability to make anything coherent and presentable to a reader really knows no bounds. I long for the day that I log back on and you are no longer here fucking everything you touch up.-- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 05:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
In section above, I am challenged to do my part and run an update myself, in part to verify that editing the intro text does not cause some problem with the updater. Okay, fair enough, I will try. Okay, I go to follow instructions at User:Dudemanfellabra/UpdateNRHPProgress, which tells me to put a line into my commons.js file, which I do, which is supposed to make an updater button available to me at the top of the NRHPPROGRESS page, which it does not. Does anyone else have experience with that, either succeeding or failing to get the updater button to show? I would be very happy if anyone else would try this. -- do ncr am 01:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The introduction text was: "The following is a collection of statistics showing how many pictures/articles about sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places have been uploaded/created, mostly by members of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Each section contains a table of all counties or county equivalents in a given state, with information about how many total NRHP listings there are in the county, how many listings have been illustrated, how many listings have articles covering them, and the quality of the existing articles. The percentages are then used to create the maps displayed on the main page of the project and in the Maps section below. At the top of the page, a compilation of the statistics state- and nationwide is also given."
"The tables on this page are updated regularly via a script, but feel free to manually update the numbers for any given state or county in order to keep the list as up to date as possible. If you do update a county, please remember also to update the totals and percentages not only in that county but also at the bottom of the state table and in the state/national totals at the top of the page. A historical chart of the data on this page can be found on the /History subpage, as well as instructions on how to create custom charts using this page's data."
State totals
Alabama – Alaska – Arizona – Arkansas – California – Colorado – Connecticut – Delaware – District of Columbia – Florida – Georgia – Hawaii – Idaho – Illinois – Indiana – Iowa – Kansas – Kentucky – Louisiana – Maine – Maryland – Massachusetts – Michigan – Minnesota – Mississippi – Missouri – Montana – Nebraska – Nevada – New Hampshire – New Jersey – New Mexico – New York – North Carolina – North Dakota – Ohio – Oklahoma – Oregon – Pennsylvania – Rhode Island – South Carolina – South Dakota – Tennessee – Texas – Utah – Vermont – Virginia – Washington – West Virginia – Wisconsin – Wyoming Puerto Rico – Guam – U.S. Virgin Islands – Northern Mariana Islands – American Samoa - Federated States of Micronesia – Marshall Islands – Palau – U.S. Minor Outlying Islands |
It would be nice to update some graphs on the pace of progress, but I don't see how to get the data. The page suggests that data from past revisions of wp:NRHPPROGRESS page can be accessed by following instructions at the History subpage, which suggests running the script User:Dudemanfellabra/NRHPProgressHistory.js. However I tried that in the past and could not get it to generate anything. Has anyone else had any success getting the script to generate any output? What is wanted is status information organized by date. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about how the bot system really works, to know if a manual edit is required to fix this.
But, the NRHPPROGRESS duplicates list identifies Light Vessel No. 57 (#91001823) as appearing in both Milwaukee, Wisconsin and in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, while it does not. It appears only in the former list.
Will one bot run or another "fix" the duplicates page? And/or will that be reflected in wp:NRHPPROGRESS. It doesn't matter in large scheme of things, this is just a support page anyhow. But maybe someone would like to make a manual fix, if one is needed. Pinging User:Magicpiano and User:TheCatalyst31 who have edits in the history of the duplicates page. Thanks. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Texas currently has NaNs and "error" for Harris County and the summary table. Chris857 ( talk) 17:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
To document what needed to be done for splitting, as applied for splitting Harris County, Texas list-article into four parts. This is one editor's current understanding, perhaps imperfect.
|align=center| ddddd |Harris: Duplicates{{WP:NRHPPROGRESS/Duplicates|Harris County, Texas}} |-
which oddly has no numbers in it, not even zeroes. Currently there are no duplicates identified, so a row of zeroes should show there. Somehow the NRHPPROGRESS page displays values in each column for each duplicates row, but there is nothing there, behind the scenes.
-- Doncram ( talk) 04:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
In this update, there are suddenly a couple thousand more articles in the totals. It looks like there is a problem in the line for Tangier, Morocco, which should show one listing but shows thousands now. User:Magicpiano, anyone else, does anyone see what could possibly have just happened? -- Doncram ( talk) 06:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, User:Magicpiano, there are glitches again in this most recent update. In Colorado, Broomfield County should have zero NRHP listings but jumped to show 15, and Adams County should have some listings but now does not show any. I just ran the update, am not attempting now to re-run or to "fix" anything. In a day or two I would expect to run the update again, maybe something would be different or maybe not. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Brief version: add the item as a row in each of NRHP county-list articles where it was missing. Then update the corresponding state-level list-article to add about duplicates in a footnote, and to show subtraction of duplicates above. E.g. to add Carter Road (Utah), revise List of RHPs in UT, as in this edit. Then let the NRHPbot come around, eventually, to update the supporting duplicates pages which must be updated for the main NRHPPROGRESS page to reflect the duplications. -- Doncram ( talk) 02:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully this works, to add identification of Mountain Quarries Bridge as being located in both El Dorado and Placer counties, not just Placer county. The NRHP document for the site gives both counties. Map view of the coordinates' location in Mapquest (which shows county lines) verifies that the river spanned by the bridge is on the counties' borders. ( try this view in Mapquest). So I am sure this is a valid update.
To implement the update, steps taken:
That seemed to work, except the last diff in wp:NRHPPROGRESS seems to show the California and national totals going up by one, when those should not have changed. :( -- Doncram ( talk) 22:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Revision as of 16:35, 24 March 2019 Necrothesp (talk | contribs) (edit summary removed) Tag: Replaced ← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:37, 24 March 2019 (view source) (thank) Ad Orientem (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Necrothesp (talk) to last version by K6ka) Tag: Rollback You cannot view this diff because one or both of the revisions have been removed from the public archives. Details can be found in the deletion log for this page.
I have requested consideration of a bot to automate updating of the NRHPPROGRESS table and for fully automated generation of the four maps. See Wikipedia:Bot requests#WikiProject NRHP project tracking tables and maps. I don't know if that would involve moving the current javascripts over to somewhere else, or involve reprogramming completely somehow. In a now-collapsed passage, I have suggested possibilities of some future changes, like perhaps dropping detailed tracking of duplicates, and about geographic coordinates checking, and about photo improvements needed or additional photos being needed (in all of which I am interested, but I may be alone or one of only a few). Please consider participating there! -- Doncram ( talk) 02:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Doncram: Hello, what can I do to help. Is the goal to find counties that need NRHP articles and create them? Or should I improve you current articles. It seems I should created. If you need any help just ask. AmericanAir88( talk) 20:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Something is messed up in presentation of Nebraska counties. Blaine County, which has no NRHP listings is shown having 5. Boyd County, which should have 5, is shown having 13. -- Doncram ( talk) 18:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Morning, I noticed that the Colorado section is missing the duplicates for Denver County, knocking the overall count off by those 6 duplicates. Can someone go in and fix that for me? Thanks. 25or6to4 ( talk) 06:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Per its NRHP nomination document, Black Rock Site (currently a redlink; see Draft:Black Rock Site), extends into Salt Lake County from Tooele County. In this edit i tried updating Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress/Duplicates which I see is usually done by NationalRegisterBot rather than manually. But maybe my edit is okay and then doesn't require the bot to be run? And in this edit i added it to National Register of Historic Places listings in Utah. And in this edit i added it as item "16.5" without renumbering the whole list, into National Register of Historic Places listings in Salt Lake County, Utah. Hope these edits are helpful in partway incorporating this fact. -- Doncram ( talk) 16:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC) P.S. Also the draft article is likely to be developed and moved to mainspace soon; I am trusting that the bot in the future will update the "unarticled" vs. "articled" status in counts as needed. Or pls. let me know if I can or should again update Duplicates manually about that. -- Doncram ( talk) 16:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
In this edit I added to Kentucky's duplicates footnote that Red River Gorge District is not just in Menifee County, but rather extends also into Powell and Wolfe counties. In that edit I also updated the county subtotals in List of RHPs in KY and updated the number of duplicates to subtract, although I gather those changes would probably have been done automatically (following from the duplicates footnote change and from my adding rows for the district into the two counties' lists). I figured out that the district must extend because for Raised Spirits Rockshelter in Powell County this "LIVING IN THE RED RIVER GORGE: An Archaeological Story" article states it is in the Red River Gorge, and our Red River Gorge article states the entire gorge is NRHP-listed, while the Powell NRHP list did not mention it. And then This big MOU document describes bounds in 3 counties. Thanks User:Magicpiano for overseeing this kind of stuff. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
FYI, I ran the statistics updater twice, which took about 19 minutes, ran to completion, said page was updated. But the page was not changed. -- Doncram ( talk) 00:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
It's been almost 10 years...the tabulation was in development winter 2013.
# YRS AGO | Total | Illus. | % Illus. | Art. | % Art. | Stubs | NRIS | Start+ | % Start+ | Unass. | Untag. | Net Qual. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9 yrs (4/1/2014): | 88,620 | 55,410 | 62.5% | 48,063 | 54.2% | 34,895 | 8,609 | 12,782 | 14.4% | 2 | 384 | 35.6% |
8 yrs (4/1/2015): | 89,691 | 62,976 | 70.2% | 53,063 | 59.2% | 38,587 | 5,568 | 14,405 | 16.1% | 2 | 69 | 42.2% |
7 yrs (4/1/2016): | 90,579 | 67,676 | 74.7% | 57,005 | 62.9% | 40,191 | 4,467 | 16,756 | 18.5% | 1 | 45 | 46.4% |
6 yrs (4/1/2017): | 91,488 | 71,727 | 78.4% | 61,658 | 67.4% | 42,648 | 3,039 | 18,888 | 20.6% | 5 | 68 | 50.7% |
5 yrs (4/1/2018): | 92,391 | 75,796 | 82.0% | 64,738 | 70.1% | 43,322 | 2,068 | 21,352 | 23.1% | 7 | 14 | 54.2% |
4 yrs (4/1/2019): | 93,257 | 77,482 | 83.1% | 67,787 | 72.7% | 44,303 | 1,733 | 23,343 | 25.0% | 2 | 101 | 56.3% |
3 yrs (4/1/2020): | 93,998 | 79,016 | 84.1% | 69,955 | 74.4% | 45,340 | 1,458 | 24,416 | 26.0% | 11 | 145 | 57.7% |
2 yrs (4/1/2021) | 94,705 | 80,587 | 85.1% | 70,688 | 74.6% | 45,609 | 1,429 | 24,874 | 26.3% | 2 | 152 | 58.1% |
1 yr (4/1/2022): | 95,354 | 81,608 | 85.6% | 71,220 | 74.7% | 45,072 | 1,368 | 25,904 | 27.2% | 3 | 189 | 58.6% |
Current (4/1/2023): | 96,431 | 82,667 | 85.7% | 72,161 | 74.8% | 44,140 | 1,216 | 27,726 | 28.8% | 9 | 229 | 59.4% |
Comments?
The percent-articled increases by new articles created, decreases by new listings and by delistings of NRHPs having articles. I thought it was hovering just below 75.0 percent for a time, not sure when. --Doncram ( talk, contribs) 22:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Could the shade white be used rather than black to indicate "No listings"? Black looks like the extreme of darkest blue (and similar to the darkest red, too). White would be neutral, in between very light blue and very light red. In the "articled" map in the Texas Panhandle area, especially, the change would make the real extremes stand out. --Doncram ( talk, contribs) 04:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | National Register of Historic Places Project‑class | ||||||
|
This page is slow to load or scroll. Would it be better to move the list of each county out to articles for each state so the page loads better? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I use the progress maps a lot, but I think there is an additional way to present information that would be more helpful. In addition to the current maps, it would be good to have maps indicitating the number of unphotographed places (or places without articles) in a county. Very often I look at a blue county and there are only one or two places that need photographs (or articles). It would help planning photo trips if this information was displayed on maps, i.e. there is one place in this county that needs a photo whereas there are nine in this other county. This would be less useful for articles, but it could help as someone familiar with a certain region could use it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The "Net quality" map reflects a linear combination of measurements, specifically by this formula:
netQuality = 0.75*articlequality+0.25*imagequality
where 1. articlequality = (startorhigher+0.5*stubs+0.25*unassessed-0.5*untagged-0.75*NRISonly)/listings 2. imagequality = images/listings
which I have been wanting to record, and just happened across. This oughta be reflected in note on the page methinks. The weights were set judgmentally, and there could be alternatives NetQuality2 and NetQuality3, say, defined differently. It's been noted that "netQuality" can go down by development of more articles in a given state or other area, counterintuitively sometimes.
Presenting it differently:
netQuality = [.75*(-.75*Articled +1.25*MultiCited +.5*RatedStart) + .25*Illustrated ] / listings
netQuality = [.75*(-.25*Articled +.75*MultiCited +.5*RatedStart) + .25*Illustrated ] / listings
or, simplifying:
netQuality = (-.5625*Articled + .9375*MultiCited + .375*RatedStart + .25*Illustrated ) / listings
netQuality = (-.1875*Articled + .5625*MultiCited + .375*RatedStart + .25*Illustrated ) / listings
where Articled = number of articles started in the county or other area (no matter what their quality) MultiCited = number of these which have a non-NRIS inline citation included (usually in addition to NRIS being a source) RatedStart = number of these which have been assigned "Start" rating in Talk page NRHP WikiProject banners Illustrated = number of listings which have any file in their county row of list-article (whether it is a picture of the NRHP or not) listings = number of NRHP-listed places in the given area
Note that -.5625 + .9375 + .375 + .25 = 1.0. that -.1875 + .5625 + .375 + .25 = 1.0. But in fact what is reported in the table and shows on the map uses a scale from 0 percent to 100 percent, rather than ranging from -.5625[-.1875] to 1. Perhaps any netQuality measure below zero is truncated upward to zero, then whatever is the netQuality average for an area is reported as if it is a percent measure?
This presentation of the formula highlights incremental effects upon average netQuality for NRHPs of a given area, e.g.
Or, more simply:
The effect depends on how many listings are in the area. For a county area that has 100 listings:
That's how it seems to work, AFAICT. -- do ncr am 07:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
netQuality = (-.5625*2 + .9375*2 + .375*1 + .25*2 ) / 5
= (-1.125 + 1.875 + .375 +.5 ) / 5
= 1.625 / 5
= .325
netQuality = (-.1875*2 + .5625*2 + .375*1 + .25*2 ) / 5 = (-.375 + 1.125 + .375 +.5 ) / 5 = 1.625 / 5 = .325
netQuality = (-.5625*1 + 0 + 0 + .25*1 ) / 1
= -.3125
(which would be rounded up to 0.0)
netQuality = (-.1875*1 + 0 + 0 + .25*1 ) / 1 = -.0625 (which would be rounded up to 6.3)
Looking at the actual code, I think there is some error in the programming which I will call "subtle" because it is not obvious; i don't see where it goes wrong. The programming is trying to implement the formula as above, including that it rounds up to 0.0 any netQuality calculated to be below zero. Perhaps there is some issue with lagged values of variables, or how the sequence of operations deals with a negative value
The relevant code section in User:Dudemanfellabra/UpdateNRHPProgress.js is:
// net quality if (temp.Total==0) { str="-" } else { str=temp.StartPlus+0.5*temp.Stubs+0.5*temp.Unassessed-0.5*temp.Untagged-0.75*temp.NRISonly str=Math.round((0.75*str/temp.Total+0.25*temp.Illustrated/temp.Total)*1000)/10 if (str<0) str=0 var test=str.toString().indexOf(".") if (test==-1 && str!=100 && str!=0) str+=".0" str+="%"
where for Archer County, Texas
temp.StartPlus = 0 temp.Stubs = 0 temp.Unassessed = 0 temp.Untagged = 0 temp.NRISonly = 1
so the calculation should basically go:
str1 = -.75 str2 = round( ( [.75*-.75] + .25 ) * 1000 ) / 10 = round( ( -.5625 + .25 ) * 1000 ) / 10 = round( ( -.3125 ) * 1000 ) / 10 = round( -312.5 ) / 10 = -31.3 = 0 (truncate up to zero) = 0.0% (formatting)
but instead what is reported is 6.3%. So something is off; the program is not always accomplishing what is intended, as far as I can tell. From checking a few more counties, I have the impression this applies when "netQuality" is going to be on the low side, anyhow, though I can't generalize with confidence. Here it seems the result is off by 6.3 percent, and maybe it is only ever off by a small amount. -- do ncr am 00:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This is on the main page:
netQuality=[0.75*(StartPlus+0.5*Stubs+0.25*Unassessed-0.5*Untagged-0.75*NRISonly) + 0.25*Illustrated]/listings*100
This formula doesn't make much sense to me: (1) An article being unassessed raises the quality, (2) a NRIS-only stub is worse than no article at all. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
<ref>[https://focus.nps.gov/GetAsset?assetID=34669b9a-ac90-4c37-9274-c41e7a553743]</ref>
<ref name=nrhpdoc>{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: or Registration: |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate= }} with {{NRHP url|id=|photos=y|title=photos}}</ref>
<ref name=nrhpdoc>{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=80001251}}|title=Thematic National Register Nomination - Georgia Courthouses: Upson County Courthouse |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date=1980 |accessdate=January 7, 2016 }}</ref>
var NRHPstatsAuto = 'false'; // per wt:NRHPPROGRESS#Untagged articles, line 1 of 2 importScript('User:Dudemanfellabra/NRHPstats.js'); // per wt:NRHPPROGRESS#Untagged articles, line 2 of 2
importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); //DYKcheck tool --this is Vector skin specific
I think that we are pretty much in agreement that a photo of a site on the county listing counts 0.25 of the total 1.0. But how about a slight change - a photo on the county list page counts 0.2 and if there is a link to more photos at commons (commonscat=) add 0.05, for a total of 0.25. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The NRHP forms usually go into a lot of architectural detail about a building - much of which a non-specialist (including me) doesn't understand. I'd rather see what it looks like. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The problems with NRIS are that (1) there are outright errors, and (2) the contents of some of the fields are hopelessly vague as used. Here's my catalogue of issue types (based on reading several thousand nominations):
Note that these issues span just about every field in the NRIS database. Literally the only thing I consider to be accurate in the NRIS are the listing date and refnum, and probably the historic function/subfunction fields (which I mostly ignore). I'm now even wondering about the refnum, because I uncovered an error in a recent weekly list where the refnum was wrong.
BTW, I also think pictures are more valuable than descriptions, assuming you can capture the architecture (or other key features) well enough. However, in the absence of that sort of photo, and in the presence of ambiguous address information, an accurate description of the listing location and features is actually useful to a photo hound who hasn't necessarily bothered to look up the nomination. When I go on photo drives, I have notes with architectural features and location info (side of road, nearby landmarks, orientation of gables and chimneys, basic style), all from the form. Including this information in an article, along with a basic historical summary, is usually enough to make it Start-level.
Please articulate proposed changes to the information presented on the progress pages at WT:NRHP, which probably has a wider audience. Magic ♪piano 14:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
There may be some support (in discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Coordinates conversions, and should we be footnoting coordinates?) for beginning to identify the quality of coordinates of NRHP-listed places, perhaps by use of draft template {{ NRHPcoord}} which would follow the {{ coord}} in NRHP county list-article table rows and in NRHP places' NRHP infoboxes.
Suppose improved/checked coordinates are identified by a string "c-improved=yes" or "c-improved=USERNAME" within the NRHPcoord template. Then it would be possible for the NRHPprogress javascript program to count those instances and add two columns to the NRHPprogress page, one for the count of "improved" coordinates on the county list-article pages and one for the count of coordinates in NRHP place articles' infoboxes.
It would be done in the UpdateNRHPProgress.js script for the list-articles in the same way that number illustrated is counted (done by searching for "image=" + any following value, but now also search for "c-improved=" + any following value), and for the NRHP places in the same way that NRIS-only articles are counted (done by searching for Category:All articles sourced only to NRIS, but now search for something like Category:NRHP coordinates improved that would be set by the NRHPcoord template if relevant). Then the script could also calculate a percentage of coordinates improved, and write the 3 resulting values as new columns in the NRHPprogress page.
I just want to note that this looks feasible to do, programming-wise. -- do ncr am 15:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a way to get old static progress maps (i.e. not the animated GIFs)? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I just updated the statistics - how do you update the maps? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
mw.loader.load('/?title=User:Dudemanfellabra/NRHPmap.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); // try NRHP map maker
Last weekend I got several photos in three counties in S.C, starting at the southern tip of the state and going up along the Georgia border:
Previously Jasper was a shade of red and the other two where shades of blue. The maps were updated today, and the colors changed, but there seems to be an error.
But the colors of Jasper and Hampton seem to be revered in the illustrated map. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Santa_Fe_County,_New_Mexico. Maybe adding Pecos National Historical Park to Santa Fe county list will mess up NRHPprogress runs, i am not sure. Maybe it shouldn't have an entry there (for discussion), so I didn't add it to duplication footnote at National Register of Historic Places listings in New Mexico. -- do ncr am 21:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Doncram: You are going to verify that you didn't break the scripts that update this page after making alterations to it, yes? (If you are not prepared to do that, kindly revert your changes. I, who have been running those updates, am not in a position to do so for the next month.) Magic ♪piano 06:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Someone posted on my talk page, so I got an email and logged on to find this. This is dumb. Would you comment out the lead of an article? Every page deserves an introduction. If we followed your logic, we'd just delete the entire project page WP:NRHP--no reason people need to know what this wikiproject is about, right? How about WP:NRHPHELP, WP:NRHPMOS, etc.? Let's just let everyone guess what every page is for. Hell, let's delete the entire WP namespace and just have articles. But really if you had your way, we wouldn't even have articles--just two sentence substubs on every topic. Your inability to make anything coherent and presentable to a reader really knows no bounds. I long for the day that I log back on and you are no longer here fucking everything you touch up.-- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 05:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
In section above, I am challenged to do my part and run an update myself, in part to verify that editing the intro text does not cause some problem with the updater. Okay, fair enough, I will try. Okay, I go to follow instructions at User:Dudemanfellabra/UpdateNRHPProgress, which tells me to put a line into my commons.js file, which I do, which is supposed to make an updater button available to me at the top of the NRHPPROGRESS page, which it does not. Does anyone else have experience with that, either succeeding or failing to get the updater button to show? I would be very happy if anyone else would try this. -- do ncr am 01:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The introduction text was: "The following is a collection of statistics showing how many pictures/articles about sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places have been uploaded/created, mostly by members of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Each section contains a table of all counties or county equivalents in a given state, with information about how many total NRHP listings there are in the county, how many listings have been illustrated, how many listings have articles covering them, and the quality of the existing articles. The percentages are then used to create the maps displayed on the main page of the project and in the Maps section below. At the top of the page, a compilation of the statistics state- and nationwide is also given."
"The tables on this page are updated regularly via a script, but feel free to manually update the numbers for any given state or county in order to keep the list as up to date as possible. If you do update a county, please remember also to update the totals and percentages not only in that county but also at the bottom of the state table and in the state/national totals at the top of the page. A historical chart of the data on this page can be found on the /History subpage, as well as instructions on how to create custom charts using this page's data."
State totals
Alabama – Alaska – Arizona – Arkansas – California – Colorado – Connecticut – Delaware – District of Columbia – Florida – Georgia – Hawaii – Idaho – Illinois – Indiana – Iowa – Kansas – Kentucky – Louisiana – Maine – Maryland – Massachusetts – Michigan – Minnesota – Mississippi – Missouri – Montana – Nebraska – Nevada – New Hampshire – New Jersey – New Mexico – New York – North Carolina – North Dakota – Ohio – Oklahoma – Oregon – Pennsylvania – Rhode Island – South Carolina – South Dakota – Tennessee – Texas – Utah – Vermont – Virginia – Washington – West Virginia – Wisconsin – Wyoming Puerto Rico – Guam – U.S. Virgin Islands – Northern Mariana Islands – American Samoa - Federated States of Micronesia – Marshall Islands – Palau – U.S. Minor Outlying Islands |
It would be nice to update some graphs on the pace of progress, but I don't see how to get the data. The page suggests that data from past revisions of wp:NRHPPROGRESS page can be accessed by following instructions at the History subpage, which suggests running the script User:Dudemanfellabra/NRHPProgressHistory.js. However I tried that in the past and could not get it to generate anything. Has anyone else had any success getting the script to generate any output? What is wanted is status information organized by date. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about how the bot system really works, to know if a manual edit is required to fix this.
But, the NRHPPROGRESS duplicates list identifies Light Vessel No. 57 (#91001823) as appearing in both Milwaukee, Wisconsin and in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, while it does not. It appears only in the former list.
Will one bot run or another "fix" the duplicates page? And/or will that be reflected in wp:NRHPPROGRESS. It doesn't matter in large scheme of things, this is just a support page anyhow. But maybe someone would like to make a manual fix, if one is needed. Pinging User:Magicpiano and User:TheCatalyst31 who have edits in the history of the duplicates page. Thanks. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Texas currently has NaNs and "error" for Harris County and the summary table. Chris857 ( talk) 17:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
To document what needed to be done for splitting, as applied for splitting Harris County, Texas list-article into four parts. This is one editor's current understanding, perhaps imperfect.
|align=center| ddddd |Harris: Duplicates{{WP:NRHPPROGRESS/Duplicates|Harris County, Texas}} |-
which oddly has no numbers in it, not even zeroes. Currently there are no duplicates identified, so a row of zeroes should show there. Somehow the NRHPPROGRESS page displays values in each column for each duplicates row, but there is nothing there, behind the scenes.
-- Doncram ( talk) 04:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
In this update, there are suddenly a couple thousand more articles in the totals. It looks like there is a problem in the line for Tangier, Morocco, which should show one listing but shows thousands now. User:Magicpiano, anyone else, does anyone see what could possibly have just happened? -- Doncram ( talk) 06:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, User:Magicpiano, there are glitches again in this most recent update. In Colorado, Broomfield County should have zero NRHP listings but jumped to show 15, and Adams County should have some listings but now does not show any. I just ran the update, am not attempting now to re-run or to "fix" anything. In a day or two I would expect to run the update again, maybe something would be different or maybe not. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Brief version: add the item as a row in each of NRHP county-list articles where it was missing. Then update the corresponding state-level list-article to add about duplicates in a footnote, and to show subtraction of duplicates above. E.g. to add Carter Road (Utah), revise List of RHPs in UT, as in this edit. Then let the NRHPbot come around, eventually, to update the supporting duplicates pages which must be updated for the main NRHPPROGRESS page to reflect the duplications. -- Doncram ( talk) 02:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully this works, to add identification of Mountain Quarries Bridge as being located in both El Dorado and Placer counties, not just Placer county. The NRHP document for the site gives both counties. Map view of the coordinates' location in Mapquest (which shows county lines) verifies that the river spanned by the bridge is on the counties' borders. ( try this view in Mapquest). So I am sure this is a valid update.
To implement the update, steps taken:
That seemed to work, except the last diff in wp:NRHPPROGRESS seems to show the California and national totals going up by one, when those should not have changed. :( -- Doncram ( talk) 22:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Revision as of 16:35, 24 March 2019 Necrothesp (talk | contribs) (edit summary removed) Tag: Replaced ← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:37, 24 March 2019 (view source) (thank) Ad Orientem (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Necrothesp (talk) to last version by K6ka) Tag: Rollback You cannot view this diff because one or both of the revisions have been removed from the public archives. Details can be found in the deletion log for this page.
I have requested consideration of a bot to automate updating of the NRHPPROGRESS table and for fully automated generation of the four maps. See Wikipedia:Bot requests#WikiProject NRHP project tracking tables and maps. I don't know if that would involve moving the current javascripts over to somewhere else, or involve reprogramming completely somehow. In a now-collapsed passage, I have suggested possibilities of some future changes, like perhaps dropping detailed tracking of duplicates, and about geographic coordinates checking, and about photo improvements needed or additional photos being needed (in all of which I am interested, but I may be alone or one of only a few). Please consider participating there! -- Doncram ( talk) 02:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Doncram: Hello, what can I do to help. Is the goal to find counties that need NRHP articles and create them? Or should I improve you current articles. It seems I should created. If you need any help just ask. AmericanAir88( talk) 20:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Something is messed up in presentation of Nebraska counties. Blaine County, which has no NRHP listings is shown having 5. Boyd County, which should have 5, is shown having 13. -- Doncram ( talk) 18:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Morning, I noticed that the Colorado section is missing the duplicates for Denver County, knocking the overall count off by those 6 duplicates. Can someone go in and fix that for me? Thanks. 25or6to4 ( talk) 06:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Per its NRHP nomination document, Black Rock Site (currently a redlink; see Draft:Black Rock Site), extends into Salt Lake County from Tooele County. In this edit i tried updating Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress/Duplicates which I see is usually done by NationalRegisterBot rather than manually. But maybe my edit is okay and then doesn't require the bot to be run? And in this edit i added it to National Register of Historic Places listings in Utah. And in this edit i added it as item "16.5" without renumbering the whole list, into National Register of Historic Places listings in Salt Lake County, Utah. Hope these edits are helpful in partway incorporating this fact. -- Doncram ( talk) 16:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC) P.S. Also the draft article is likely to be developed and moved to mainspace soon; I am trusting that the bot in the future will update the "unarticled" vs. "articled" status in counts as needed. Or pls. let me know if I can or should again update Duplicates manually about that. -- Doncram ( talk) 16:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
In this edit I added to Kentucky's duplicates footnote that Red River Gorge District is not just in Menifee County, but rather extends also into Powell and Wolfe counties. In that edit I also updated the county subtotals in List of RHPs in KY and updated the number of duplicates to subtract, although I gather those changes would probably have been done automatically (following from the duplicates footnote change and from my adding rows for the district into the two counties' lists). I figured out that the district must extend because for Raised Spirits Rockshelter in Powell County this "LIVING IN THE RED RIVER GORGE: An Archaeological Story" article states it is in the Red River Gorge, and our Red River Gorge article states the entire gorge is NRHP-listed, while the Powell NRHP list did not mention it. And then This big MOU document describes bounds in 3 counties. Thanks User:Magicpiano for overseeing this kind of stuff. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
FYI, I ran the statistics updater twice, which took about 19 minutes, ran to completion, said page was updated. But the page was not changed. -- Doncram ( talk) 00:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
It's been almost 10 years...the tabulation was in development winter 2013.
# YRS AGO | Total | Illus. | % Illus. | Art. | % Art. | Stubs | NRIS | Start+ | % Start+ | Unass. | Untag. | Net Qual. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9 yrs (4/1/2014): | 88,620 | 55,410 | 62.5% | 48,063 | 54.2% | 34,895 | 8,609 | 12,782 | 14.4% | 2 | 384 | 35.6% |
8 yrs (4/1/2015): | 89,691 | 62,976 | 70.2% | 53,063 | 59.2% | 38,587 | 5,568 | 14,405 | 16.1% | 2 | 69 | 42.2% |
7 yrs (4/1/2016): | 90,579 | 67,676 | 74.7% | 57,005 | 62.9% | 40,191 | 4,467 | 16,756 | 18.5% | 1 | 45 | 46.4% |
6 yrs (4/1/2017): | 91,488 | 71,727 | 78.4% | 61,658 | 67.4% | 42,648 | 3,039 | 18,888 | 20.6% | 5 | 68 | 50.7% |
5 yrs (4/1/2018): | 92,391 | 75,796 | 82.0% | 64,738 | 70.1% | 43,322 | 2,068 | 21,352 | 23.1% | 7 | 14 | 54.2% |
4 yrs (4/1/2019): | 93,257 | 77,482 | 83.1% | 67,787 | 72.7% | 44,303 | 1,733 | 23,343 | 25.0% | 2 | 101 | 56.3% |
3 yrs (4/1/2020): | 93,998 | 79,016 | 84.1% | 69,955 | 74.4% | 45,340 | 1,458 | 24,416 | 26.0% | 11 | 145 | 57.7% |
2 yrs (4/1/2021) | 94,705 | 80,587 | 85.1% | 70,688 | 74.6% | 45,609 | 1,429 | 24,874 | 26.3% | 2 | 152 | 58.1% |
1 yr (4/1/2022): | 95,354 | 81,608 | 85.6% | 71,220 | 74.7% | 45,072 | 1,368 | 25,904 | 27.2% | 3 | 189 | 58.6% |
Current (4/1/2023): | 96,431 | 82,667 | 85.7% | 72,161 | 74.8% | 44,140 | 1,216 | 27,726 | 28.8% | 9 | 229 | 59.4% |
Comments?
The percent-articled increases by new articles created, decreases by new listings and by delistings of NRHPs having articles. I thought it was hovering just below 75.0 percent for a time, not sure when. --Doncram ( talk, contribs) 22:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Could the shade white be used rather than black to indicate "No listings"? Black looks like the extreme of darkest blue (and similar to the darkest red, too). White would be neutral, in between very light blue and very light red. In the "articled" map in the Texas Panhandle area, especially, the change would make the real extremes stand out. --Doncram ( talk, contribs) 04:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)