![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Does anyone know why the archive list for this page only goes up to 22 whereas the MiszaBot that creates them last archived to number 27? Do we need to manually add each new archive page? This seems like something the bot should do. -- sanfranman59 ( talk) 17:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
What's our procedure for correcting NRIS errors? The property listed as "Tottell House" in Washington County, Rhode Island, is actually the " Tootell House" (Tootell is a well-known name there). See http://www.ri.gov/preservation/search/view.php?idnumber=SOKI00550 . I've corrected it a few places here... -- Orlady ( talk) 16:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I was going through Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup as a part of the drive mentioned above, and I came across a problem. Denton House is individually listed on the NRHP, and it is a contributing property to Chestertown Historic District (Chestertown, Maryland). Well that's all well and good because the new infobox code can handle that, but the problem arose when I looked up Denton House to find out if the refnum already in the article was that of the house or of the district. While there, Elkman's Infobox tool said that Denton House (#71000377) was an NHL. I can't find any other source that says this house is an NHL.. it's not listed on List of NHLs in MD or on the actual NHL site, so I believe this is an error with Elkman's tool. -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 17:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Mark Twain House for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Category:Historic districts in the United States is absurdly large, including 3,051 articles. I was about to start splitting it when I realised that {{ Infobox nrhp}} automatically places an article in this category if it has "hd" in the "nrhp_type" line. I'd like to see this modified: not removed, or we'd probably have tons of HD articles not categorised as HDs anymore, but changed so that we can place a more local category instead. Is there any way to do this? As it is, even specifically-categorised articles such as the Franklin Square Historic District in Baltimore, a member of Category:Historic districts in Baltimore, Maryland, is also in the nationwide category. Nyttend ( talk) 14:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It was mentioned within above "One benefit of manual checking: I took the "HD" spec off a couple of articles that are individual properties, not historic districts." What is the information that would lead one to believe the HD specification is incorrect? I believe that there are single-legal-parcel properties, such as some plantations, which are properly described in their NRHP listing as being "historic districts", by the NRHP definition. What's usually the source of an HD specification is the NRIS system identifying that way. In which case it probably also is shown that way in the corresponding NRHP state- or county-list table. I personally am not all enamored of making the HD vs. non-HD distinction, while we don't differentiate objects vs. structures vs. buildings. But since this distinction is made, shouldn't we be careful to stick to the NRIS source for these, unless there is significant evidence of a mistake in NRIS (in which case that should be recorded for reporting)? Note the NRHP.COM website and others will continue to slavishly follow the NRIS indication of HD. Are there some specific examples which could be reviewed? doncram ( talk) 22:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:
-- Mr. Z-man 00:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
A bunch of NRHPs has its' profile page at the focus.nps.gov website, though most do not have their nomination forms digitalized yet. However if we introduce a new parameter refnumlink= it could link the reference number in the infobox to that website.
If I looked correctly the code string
{{#if:{{{refnum<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|
{{!}}'''NRHP- reference#:'''
{{!}}{{{refnum}}}}}
just needs to be replaced by
{{#if: {{{refnum<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|{{!}}'''NRHP reference#:''' {{!}}{{#ifeq: {{{refnumlink}}} | yes | [http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/{{{refnum}}}.pdf {{{refnum}}}] [http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/{{{refnum}}}.pdf (Photos)] | {{{refnum}}} }} }}
(Since i am not a template guru the code needs to be revised...)
In the case the reference number was 76000484 and refnumlink=yes was set, the template would show
else only the number 76000484. If sometime later the profile page will get an permanent link (I requested the implementation at the NPS and got told they might consider it when updating the softwarewhatsoever since I wasn't the first who asked) we could easily fix it to the profile page rather than the PDFs.
What do you think? -- Matthiasb ( talk) 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) That's a good idea.. Maybe a new parameter like "nomination_link="? The link could show up after the listing date (i.e. "Added to NRHP: January 1, 2000 ( Nomination form)"). If there is no nomination form digitized, the text won't show up.-- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Some semi-new code in {{ Infobox nrhp}} allows an editor to embed the infobox into another infobox (examples can be seen at Template:Infobox nrhp/testcases), but there seems to be a problem. The meta-template {{ Infobox}} doesn't seem to be compatible with the code in our infobox. A great example of this would be {{ Infobox Windmill}}. Recently an editor changed that infobox to be meta-compatible, and it broke compatibility with our embed feature. Before the change to the meta-template, the infobox was completely compatible. The broken example can be seen on the testcases page.
I've tried numerous times to extend compatibility of the embed feature to infoboxes that use the meta-template, all to no avail. Any infobox that doesn't use {{Infobox}} (or at least all the ones I've seen) work perfectly with the embed feature. Either something is wrong with our code that won't allow compatibility, or there's something wrong with the meta-template's code. If anyone can figure out what's causing this problem, it would greatly be appreciated. If compatibility can be extended to include the meta-template, the feature can be included in nearly all infoboxes, allowing numerous infoboxes to be seamlessly embedded together. It would be a great step forward in infobox technology in Wikipedia! -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 22:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've created the Old Randolph County Courthouse article mainly to distinguish it from the "new" Randolph County Courthouse. However I have searched on the NRHP website and can't find the NRHP number for the old courthouse. Is there an easy way to determine this? -- Ichabod ( talk) 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to make a few changes to the output of Elkman's infobox generator? The infobox is called with "Infobox_nrhp" (notice the underscore), which is not correct. I have been going through a bunch of articles and removing the underscore (along with other cleanup), but the generator makes all new articles have it unless the editor takes it out, which is very rare.
Also, I think that listing an nrhp_type of "nhl" should be removed since all the NHL articles have now been created, and the generator doesn't work with the newest NHLs anyway because they're not in Elkman's database yet. The infobox sometimes erroneously outputs nrhp_type=nhl if the site is associated with an NHLD or even when an NHL is present in the same district as the site you're querying (I've only observed the first case, but Doncram suggested the second one). This can cause confusion with new infoboxes and people erroneously marking them as NHLs when they're not. Removing the output all together would prevent this problem.
Some more personal gripes are that the name parameter should be moved down a line for uniformity and the NRIS reference should be moved up to the "added" date, which is common practice in many articles.-- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 19:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
State subcategories for states with railway stations on the NRHP have been created under Category:Railway stations on the National Register of Historic Places and existing stations allocated to those subcategories.-- Pubdog ( talk) 16:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Elkman's infobox generator shows the Meridian Baptist Seminary as being listed on the National Register in 2008 when it was actually listed in 1979 (according to this). The 2008 date corresponds to the date it was delisted (according to this), but Elkman's tool doesn't specify this. Usually there's an "NR" designation or something out to the side, but nothing for this. -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 07:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This winter(2008-2009) I started a crusade to subdivide the National Register of Historic Places listings in Suffolk County, New York by township. Now I have separate town lists for National Register of Historic Places listings in Nassau County, New York, prepared or almost prepared for the taking. I've already tagged Nassau and Weschester NRHP lists for excessive length, but I don't have anything set up for Weschester County yet. ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you'd split up Westchester, given that I already split off Yonkers. There is a tendency within the county to divide it into northern (the more rural areas north of White Plains) and southern (urban and suburban communities between White Plains and New York City). Is it also possible to create a separate list for New Rochelle? How many listings are in that city? Daniel Case ( talk) 16:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, some editors are busy developing and adding to categories of the format "Category:Historic districts in State", and including that into parent NRHP category, and deleting the NRHP category in some NRHP HD articles (or at least one article, Main Street Historic District (Middletown, Connecticut)). This tends towards removing 14,000 NRHP HDs from NRHP categories! It is plain wrong to assume that all historic districts in states are included in the NRHP. There can be local historic districts. Even if all the current members of a state category are NRHP-listed, the system is not stable and the naming does not preclude the addition of local historic districts. So, IMO categories like Category:Historic districts in Connecticut, etc, have to be removed from the NRHP parent category, and then some NRHP HDs are dropped out of NRHP categories. (Actually i removed some such Historic districts in State categories from NRHP parent categories before, but didn't notice others coming back and adding them in again until just now.)
Is this a crisis? Well, who really cares about categories, so it can't really be a crisis. But still, how can this situation now be fixed?
In my view, if you add "Category:Historic districts in State" to an NRHP HD article, you can't drop the NRHP category for the article! And, all the Historic districts in State categories need to be revisited to drop from parent NRHP. doncram ( talk) 04:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Historic district (United States) claims that there are about 2,300 local historic districts. While this may be small in comparison to the many thousands of NRHP HDs, 2,300 is a pretty big number that deserves some attention. Of course all those districts don't have their own articles at the time being (I don't even know of one), but in the long term, let's say they eventually all have articles. One possible solution (using Alabama as the example) would be as follows:
This separates the "historic districts" term from the "NRHP" term at the top level, keeping the two separate all the way down to the state (and lower) level. Each state will have a category "Category:Historic districts in State" that will contain "Category:Federal historic districts in state". The federal category will only contain NRHP articles, so it will be a subcategory of "Category:National Register of Historic Places in State" as well.
Category:Local historic districts in the United States would hold all local districts in all states at first and would be a subcategory of only Category:Historic districts in the United States. If at some point in the future, we needed to split up the local districts category into state-level categories, those state-level categories (i.e. "Category:Local historic districts in State") would be a subcategory of "Category:Historic districts in State" but not of "Category:National Register of Historic Places in State".
A district in Alabama that is both on the NRHP and locally designated would include Category:Federal historic districts in Alabama and Category:Local historic districts in the United States as of now, but if Category:Local historic districts in Alabama is created, the article would be placed in that category and removed from the "Local historic districts in the US" category. A district that is only locally designated will only include Category:Local historic districts in the United States right now, but if Category:Local historic districts in Alabama is created it will be moved to the state level category and removed from the US category.
I included an image showing how the category "tree" would look for Alabama.-- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 20:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
A question I don't see addressed here is, are local historic districts notable? I've been to a couple of places where they have big signs saying "Welcome to the Downtown Podunk Historic District" when my experience in many NRHP-listed HDs assures me that while maybe a couple of buildings might be worth a listing, the whole neighborhood isn't. I can see doing HD articles for ones designated in large cities, but most of those are eventually listed on the NRHP anyway. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Does anyone know why the archive list for this page only goes up to 22 whereas the MiszaBot that creates them last archived to number 27? Do we need to manually add each new archive page? This seems like something the bot should do. -- sanfranman59 ( talk) 17:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
What's our procedure for correcting NRIS errors? The property listed as "Tottell House" in Washington County, Rhode Island, is actually the " Tootell House" (Tootell is a well-known name there). See http://www.ri.gov/preservation/search/view.php?idnumber=SOKI00550 . I've corrected it a few places here... -- Orlady ( talk) 16:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I was going through Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup as a part of the drive mentioned above, and I came across a problem. Denton House is individually listed on the NRHP, and it is a contributing property to Chestertown Historic District (Chestertown, Maryland). Well that's all well and good because the new infobox code can handle that, but the problem arose when I looked up Denton House to find out if the refnum already in the article was that of the house or of the district. While there, Elkman's Infobox tool said that Denton House (#71000377) was an NHL. I can't find any other source that says this house is an NHL.. it's not listed on List of NHLs in MD or on the actual NHL site, so I believe this is an error with Elkman's tool. -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 17:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Mark Twain House for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Category:Historic districts in the United States is absurdly large, including 3,051 articles. I was about to start splitting it when I realised that {{ Infobox nrhp}} automatically places an article in this category if it has "hd" in the "nrhp_type" line. I'd like to see this modified: not removed, or we'd probably have tons of HD articles not categorised as HDs anymore, but changed so that we can place a more local category instead. Is there any way to do this? As it is, even specifically-categorised articles such as the Franklin Square Historic District in Baltimore, a member of Category:Historic districts in Baltimore, Maryland, is also in the nationwide category. Nyttend ( talk) 14:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It was mentioned within above "One benefit of manual checking: I took the "HD" spec off a couple of articles that are individual properties, not historic districts." What is the information that would lead one to believe the HD specification is incorrect? I believe that there are single-legal-parcel properties, such as some plantations, which are properly described in their NRHP listing as being "historic districts", by the NRHP definition. What's usually the source of an HD specification is the NRIS system identifying that way. In which case it probably also is shown that way in the corresponding NRHP state- or county-list table. I personally am not all enamored of making the HD vs. non-HD distinction, while we don't differentiate objects vs. structures vs. buildings. But since this distinction is made, shouldn't we be careful to stick to the NRIS source for these, unless there is significant evidence of a mistake in NRIS (in which case that should be recorded for reporting)? Note the NRHP.COM website and others will continue to slavishly follow the NRIS indication of HD. Are there some specific examples which could be reviewed? doncram ( talk) 22:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:
-- Mr. Z-man 00:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
A bunch of NRHPs has its' profile page at the focus.nps.gov website, though most do not have their nomination forms digitalized yet. However if we introduce a new parameter refnumlink= it could link the reference number in the infobox to that website.
If I looked correctly the code string
{{#if:{{{refnum<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|
{{!}}'''NRHP- reference#:'''
{{!}}{{{refnum}}}}}
just needs to be replaced by
{{#if: {{{refnum<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|{{!}}'''NRHP reference#:''' {{!}}{{#ifeq: {{{refnumlink}}} | yes | [http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/{{{refnum}}}.pdf {{{refnum}}}] [http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/{{{refnum}}}.pdf (Photos)] | {{{refnum}}} }} }}
(Since i am not a template guru the code needs to be revised...)
In the case the reference number was 76000484 and refnumlink=yes was set, the template would show
else only the number 76000484. If sometime later the profile page will get an permanent link (I requested the implementation at the NPS and got told they might consider it when updating the softwarewhatsoever since I wasn't the first who asked) we could easily fix it to the profile page rather than the PDFs.
What do you think? -- Matthiasb ( talk) 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) That's a good idea.. Maybe a new parameter like "nomination_link="? The link could show up after the listing date (i.e. "Added to NRHP: January 1, 2000 ( Nomination form)"). If there is no nomination form digitized, the text won't show up.-- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Some semi-new code in {{ Infobox nrhp}} allows an editor to embed the infobox into another infobox (examples can be seen at Template:Infobox nrhp/testcases), but there seems to be a problem. The meta-template {{ Infobox}} doesn't seem to be compatible with the code in our infobox. A great example of this would be {{ Infobox Windmill}}. Recently an editor changed that infobox to be meta-compatible, and it broke compatibility with our embed feature. Before the change to the meta-template, the infobox was completely compatible. The broken example can be seen on the testcases page.
I've tried numerous times to extend compatibility of the embed feature to infoboxes that use the meta-template, all to no avail. Any infobox that doesn't use {{Infobox}} (or at least all the ones I've seen) work perfectly with the embed feature. Either something is wrong with our code that won't allow compatibility, or there's something wrong with the meta-template's code. If anyone can figure out what's causing this problem, it would greatly be appreciated. If compatibility can be extended to include the meta-template, the feature can be included in nearly all infoboxes, allowing numerous infoboxes to be seamlessly embedded together. It would be a great step forward in infobox technology in Wikipedia! -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 22:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've created the Old Randolph County Courthouse article mainly to distinguish it from the "new" Randolph County Courthouse. However I have searched on the NRHP website and can't find the NRHP number for the old courthouse. Is there an easy way to determine this? -- Ichabod ( talk) 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to make a few changes to the output of Elkman's infobox generator? The infobox is called with "Infobox_nrhp" (notice the underscore), which is not correct. I have been going through a bunch of articles and removing the underscore (along with other cleanup), but the generator makes all new articles have it unless the editor takes it out, which is very rare.
Also, I think that listing an nrhp_type of "nhl" should be removed since all the NHL articles have now been created, and the generator doesn't work with the newest NHLs anyway because they're not in Elkman's database yet. The infobox sometimes erroneously outputs nrhp_type=nhl if the site is associated with an NHLD or even when an NHL is present in the same district as the site you're querying (I've only observed the first case, but Doncram suggested the second one). This can cause confusion with new infoboxes and people erroneously marking them as NHLs when they're not. Removing the output all together would prevent this problem.
Some more personal gripes are that the name parameter should be moved down a line for uniformity and the NRIS reference should be moved up to the "added" date, which is common practice in many articles.-- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 19:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
State subcategories for states with railway stations on the NRHP have been created under Category:Railway stations on the National Register of Historic Places and existing stations allocated to those subcategories.-- Pubdog ( talk) 16:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Elkman's infobox generator shows the Meridian Baptist Seminary as being listed on the National Register in 2008 when it was actually listed in 1979 (according to this). The 2008 date corresponds to the date it was delisted (according to this), but Elkman's tool doesn't specify this. Usually there's an "NR" designation or something out to the side, but nothing for this. -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 07:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This winter(2008-2009) I started a crusade to subdivide the National Register of Historic Places listings in Suffolk County, New York by township. Now I have separate town lists for National Register of Historic Places listings in Nassau County, New York, prepared or almost prepared for the taking. I've already tagged Nassau and Weschester NRHP lists for excessive length, but I don't have anything set up for Weschester County yet. ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you'd split up Westchester, given that I already split off Yonkers. There is a tendency within the county to divide it into northern (the more rural areas north of White Plains) and southern (urban and suburban communities between White Plains and New York City). Is it also possible to create a separate list for New Rochelle? How many listings are in that city? Daniel Case ( talk) 16:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, some editors are busy developing and adding to categories of the format "Category:Historic districts in State", and including that into parent NRHP category, and deleting the NRHP category in some NRHP HD articles (or at least one article, Main Street Historic District (Middletown, Connecticut)). This tends towards removing 14,000 NRHP HDs from NRHP categories! It is plain wrong to assume that all historic districts in states are included in the NRHP. There can be local historic districts. Even if all the current members of a state category are NRHP-listed, the system is not stable and the naming does not preclude the addition of local historic districts. So, IMO categories like Category:Historic districts in Connecticut, etc, have to be removed from the NRHP parent category, and then some NRHP HDs are dropped out of NRHP categories. (Actually i removed some such Historic districts in State categories from NRHP parent categories before, but didn't notice others coming back and adding them in again until just now.)
Is this a crisis? Well, who really cares about categories, so it can't really be a crisis. But still, how can this situation now be fixed?
In my view, if you add "Category:Historic districts in State" to an NRHP HD article, you can't drop the NRHP category for the article! And, all the Historic districts in State categories need to be revisited to drop from parent NRHP. doncram ( talk) 04:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Historic district (United States) claims that there are about 2,300 local historic districts. While this may be small in comparison to the many thousands of NRHP HDs, 2,300 is a pretty big number that deserves some attention. Of course all those districts don't have their own articles at the time being (I don't even know of one), but in the long term, let's say they eventually all have articles. One possible solution (using Alabama as the example) would be as follows:
This separates the "historic districts" term from the "NRHP" term at the top level, keeping the two separate all the way down to the state (and lower) level. Each state will have a category "Category:Historic districts in State" that will contain "Category:Federal historic districts in state". The federal category will only contain NRHP articles, so it will be a subcategory of "Category:National Register of Historic Places in State" as well.
Category:Local historic districts in the United States would hold all local districts in all states at first and would be a subcategory of only Category:Historic districts in the United States. If at some point in the future, we needed to split up the local districts category into state-level categories, those state-level categories (i.e. "Category:Local historic districts in State") would be a subcategory of "Category:Historic districts in State" but not of "Category:National Register of Historic Places in State".
A district in Alabama that is both on the NRHP and locally designated would include Category:Federal historic districts in Alabama and Category:Local historic districts in the United States as of now, but if Category:Local historic districts in Alabama is created, the article would be placed in that category and removed from the "Local historic districts in the US" category. A district that is only locally designated will only include Category:Local historic districts in the United States right now, but if Category:Local historic districts in Alabama is created it will be moved to the state level category and removed from the US category.
I included an image showing how the category "tree" would look for Alabama.-- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 20:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
A question I don't see addressed here is, are local historic districts notable? I've been to a couple of places where they have big signs saying "Welcome to the Downtown Podunk Historic District" when my experience in many NRHP-listed HDs assures me that while maybe a couple of buildings might be worth a listing, the whole neighborhood isn't. I can see doing HD articles for ones designated in large cities, but most of those are eventually listed on the NRHP anyway. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)