Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox NRHP/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

This is an archive of template talk:infobox nrhp2, the Talk page of fork {{infobox nrhp2}} which has been remerged into infobox nrhp. Related discussions were held also at wt:NRHP and appear in its archives.

Suggestions: local designations

Is it possible to add a parameter for one or two local designations. For example, I would like to add Chicago Landmark at the top and the designation date at the bottom of the infobox at Chicago Board of Trade Building.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, i am not sure if the NRHP2 infobox should accomodate non-NRHP-related designations. I am wondering if a new infobox for local designations (e.g. Chicago, NYC Landmarks commission, etc. ought to be developed. However, perhaps in an article such as TonyTheTiger mentions, having just one historic designations infobox that covers all of the designations, would be best. So, I don't know. What should govern is what is best for wikipedia readers. doncram (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I, too, don't think local landmarks should have a designated bar at the top; I'd have to add one for Chicago, one for NYC - one for every single large city; that, IMO, is not worth it. I could, however, make an option for a blank box - one that could contain any designation. Something like designated_other_name=Chicago Landmark and then allow it to be displayed in the bottom with designated_other_date=January 1, 2000. Does this sound good?
Perhaps you would also need to allow for a linked abbreviation to be used with the date: designated_other_name=CL so that you can identify the date to be displayed as Designated CL January 1, 2000.
Another question is which order to present them in. Perhaps most local to most important national designation is the natural order, as it is usually the chronological order. So show "Chicago Landmark" then "National Register" then "National Historic Landmark", and order the date displays the same way.
I don't think it should be abbreviated; there are too many different ways to abbreviate things, and no one would know what they are. The abbreviations currently in the infobox are standard throughout NPS and NRHP, so someone with knowledge of the organizations would know what they are. For the local designations, I was just gonna display Designated {{{designated_other_name}}}: {{{designated_other_date}}}' in the info section and create a bar at the top containing ([[{{{designated_other_name}}}]]), so it would link. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The abbreviation would be linked, so a reader can click on it to find out what it is. And the abbreviation of, say LACHM, is pretty easy to figure out when the spelled out L.A. Historic-Cultural Monument appears further up in the same infobox. So i think the abbreviation is helpful. Also, the other argument that would have to be passed is a chosen color. Note i chose the california golden color from the Template:Los Angeles and from Template:California in the implementation i did. If we offer an "other" service, then "other-color" is another argument needed. doncram (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so what about this?: No hard-coded bars like the Chicago and LA ones... just one custom bar. designated_other_name would be the designation (e.g. Chicago Landmark, California Landmark, etc.). designated_other_date would be the date of designation. designated_other_abbreviation would be the abbreviation to be displayed in the info section. designated_other_link would be the article to which the abbreviation and title bar linked. If name is given, date would be required and vice versa. Abbreviation and link would be optional. If no abbreviation is given, the info section shows the entire word ("Designated Chicago Landmark" instead of "Designated CL"), and if there is no link provided, I'll make the infobox check to see if an article exists with the same name as designated_other_name. If so, it'll link to the article; if not, it won't. How does that sound? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for giving thought to this. I see that name + abbreviation + link parameters would be equivalent to linked-name + linked-abbreviation parameters in terms of infobox appearance; I imagine that the programming could be done either way, so I think the choice of which parameter set should be based on what would be easiest for inexperienced editors. I think name + abbreviation + link parameters is probably simplest that way.
I see further that you are being sensitive and helpful to offer to build in a check, if link paramter is not provided, to see if there is an article named name-parameter or not, to link to instead. Actually, I think this is probably unnecessary and i mildly prefer for it not to be there, to keep the NRHP2 code simpler and more understandable for future editors, and to put some appropriate burden upon an editor promoting use of a given local designation. I think it is reasonable for us to require, for NRHP infobox to support inclusion of a given local designation on NRHP infoboxes, that there at least be a linkable article about the type of local designation. (I noted by your edit and its summary that the absence of a valid link for Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument seemed to trouble you. That is a valid concern, but only temporarily: i and CBL62 who is working with me already on a list of LAHCMs certainly will create that article. However we are being "strategic" about developing it first before launching it, in order to get DYK exposure for it when we do release it. See User:Doncram/Sandbox4 for our corresponding list article in progress.)
I was further thinking that designated_other_color needs to be an additional parameter. But, I would be concerned about encouraging passing of a hard-coded color value like "#ffc94b" by many calls from many articles, when it would be better practice to have a central name for the color, like "NRHP color", "NHL color", etc. and like "LAHCM color" that i defined. However, perhaps this issue should just be carefully discussed in the documentation to be added. For the "other" designations that would be served this way, I am imagining that there will be relatively few articles of any given "other" local designation that are also NRHPs, so later implementing a color change by revisiting all those hard-codings would not be too onerous.
About directly supporting L.A. Historic-Cultural Monuments, California Historical Landmarks, and Chicago Landmarks or not, I personally want to retain the direct support for those that I programmed into the NRHP2 infobox code. There already exist corresponding list-articles for each of them (list for the first in sandbox draft form as mentioned, list for the second here, a Featured List of the third here). This direct support is already used in articles, such as Manzanar. And a single "Other" designation would not adequately serve the need. Note, Manzanar already uses both LAHCM and CHISL designations. There are multiple other sites that are NRHP-LAHCM-CHISL triples, and further there will probably be additional cases where a NRHP site is listed by LAHCM and/or CHISL and is further designated by a truly local designation, for which the Other designation will be helpful. Please note, an LAHCM designation is hardly "local": Los Angeles, California, and Chicago are vast areas with populations bigger than, say, the state of Mississippi. :) doncram (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
See comments below in the "wrong method" section. I see what you mean about the checklink thing. It's actually very simple to code and understand. The code for the link in the bar at the top would be {{#ifexist {{{designated_other_name}}} | ([[{{{designated_other_name}}}]]) | ({{{designated_other_name}}}) }}. If an article existed with that exact name, it would link; if not, it wouldn't. I support adding it in simply to take the burden off the editor. I agree with what you're saying about the necessity for a linked article, but I have no idea how we'd enforce that.. it's not like we can check every single article to make sure the local designation is linked. We can put some guidelines in the documentation and hope people follow it, but other than that, there's not much preventative measure we can take.
I agree with the color thing. You know you don't have to pass the hex codes, right? You can just type in "red" or "blue" or whatever.. if you want a hex code, you can still type it, but it's not necessary. If an editor wants to have a centralized template for all articles that are, say, "California Landmarks," he can make Template:California Landmark color to include the hex code/color name and just type in designated_other_color = {{California Landmark color}}}.
I still don't support leaving the hard-coded designations in. These designations are easily added using the "other" method, so IMO, there's really no need for hard-coded designations. Everything that the current hard-coded designations display can be displayed by a combination of "other" parameters currently being discussed. The solution to the Manzanar problem is discussed in the "wrong method" section below as adding "other1", "other2", and "other3" parameters instead of a single "other" parameter. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
At a minimum the "Other" option should be offered. I am kinda inclined to say we should try to support any local designations that people want, so have a specific field for Chicago Landmarks (some hundreds, listed in List of Chicago landmarks). Why not? Yes, then we would have to also support NYC Landmarks (some thousands), and City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments (856 in number). Note, we are supporting some tiny categories: International Historic Parks or whatever it is that has exactly 1 member, and several others having fewer than 10 members. It would help editors venturing into the local domains, to use a single infobox to cover their local domain plus NRHP designations.
Why not? They have nothing to do with the NRHP or the NPS. Hell, I could make a bar for Lake, MS, Landmarks or Cuba, AL, Landmarks or any other podunk town in the United Staes....... one for every locality in the country! Maybe even the entire world! See the problem? If a separate bar is included for each designation, there will be way too many requests and way too many total bars. If the "other" option is offered, one can type in whatever designation they want and there won't have to be 561978431 bars included in this infobox.
On another note, yes, we are supporting tiny categories, but that's because they're all the categories in the NPS. Wasn't that the entire reason for this infobox? It wasn't intended to do anything about local landmarks; it was intended to mix NPSs and NRHPs. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, dudeman, TonyTheTiger is a VIP: he is main author of List of Chicago landmarks the only current Featured List directly comparable to what we are trying to do with all the Lists of NHLs and RHPs, none of which are FLs yet, and he is very experienced, so a good "customer" to try to serve, if anyone is. So, I am in favor of accommodating with Chicago-specific fields and seeing how it goes. Besides NYC Landmarks and Los Angeles HCMs and California Historical Landmarks, I don't foresee any other requests for other custom fields coming anytime soon. Why not figure out how easy/hard it is to accommodate such a request, just by doing it? doncram (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Even if he is a "VIP," Chicago Landmark designations have nothing to do with this infobox. I support adding in an "other" option, but adding in a bar for each city is absurd. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, i want the same for Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments, with LAHCM color template now defined as in Template:Los Angeles, and (check out User:Doncram/Sandbox4 which applies it), and designated_lahcm. I may try to edit NRHP2 to do this and to try Chicago Landmark as well. Tony, do you have a color we should use for the background color bar in the header of the NRHP infobox, for the Chicago Landmark bar? Hmm, i guess we should try background:#aaccff as in Template:Chicago. doncram (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, i tried editing the NRHP2 template myself, to handle the LA HCMs and the Chicago Landmarks, but this version doesn't look quite right, so i undid the change. Dudeman, can you fix up that version, and/or see what i did wrong? doncram (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it's easy to do (you've already done it), but it's not logical. If you open the door for one city, every one in America is gonna want to have a bar (exaggeration). See above discussion: This infobox is not for local designations. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, within the NRHP2 infobox i was only thinking about handling NRHPs, NRHPs that also happen to have other designations. For sites that are just local designated, the NRHP2 infobox won't work, as it uses NRHP color and automatically includes a "Register of Historic Places" bar. For local designations either a custom infobox or a generic local infobox are needed, separate from NRHP2, i believe (such as LOCAL1 which i started to handle LAHCMs that are not also NRHPs). doncram (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay a version now implemented that works for Chicago Landmarks, as implemented at Chicago Board of Trade Building, and for L.A. Historic-Cultural Monuments, as implemented at Hollywood Studio Club. doncram (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the looks of the Manzanar infobox. I am totally in favor of not having separate infoboxes for local designations. I don't really care how the bar gets there for a city, by using the "other" feature as Dudemanfellabra is in favor of or by building it in as doncram favors. I can see the problem with every podunk town wanting them, and I can also see the benefits of customization for those in localities with large numbers of locally designated sites. What if they're limited to only localities with over 500 designated sites? Or whatever magic number you want to use....wouldn't that limit the number of localities enough so that it's possible to offer the customization requested to people like Tony the Tiger? Lvklock (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong method

I have been out of the loop since my suggestion, but it makes little sense to add each local landmark. Instead of a chicl field and one for each of the hundreds of local designations there should just be two or three fields that say other1, other2, and other3. Instead of adding yes the entry would be the name of the landmark. I.E., Instead of chicl=yes it should be other1=Chicago Landmark. If you added three other fields I am quite sure almost every building could be accomodated. Thus, all other local landmarks could add their information. I don't mean to throw stones, but the algorhythm chosen was extremely inefficient. Every single local landmark will have to come by and ask for a new parameter. To my knowledge only Chicago Board of Trade Building, Rookery Building and Roanoke Building have added Chicago Landmark. Could someone change the parameter for a general entry so that everyone can use this. When I am in Buffalo or New Orleans I don't want to have to add special code for their local historical societies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This was what I was getting at. I like your idea of the "other1", 2, and 3 parameters. I was only thinking of adding one "other" parameter, but as you say here and user:doncram said above, some articles need more than one local designation. I think designated_other1_name (i.e. state?), designated_other2_name (i.e. county/parish?), and designated_other3_name (i.e. city?) (along with date, abbreviation, link, and possibly color) would be the most efficient method of handling the local designations. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the overstatements that have run through this whole discussion here and on WT:NRHP. TonyTheTiger's current request for Chicago Landmark coverage and my and CBL62's interest in California and Los Angeles landmarks are the only requests for any adaption of NRHP infobox that have ever come up in wp:NRHP history. There is some brief discussion of what makes local designations notable in an NRHP Talk archive, with respect to a Maryland editor, but that editor did not go so far as to begin to create any articles about the type of local designation or to create any list of them. Sure it is conceivable that eventually other requests would come in, but there is no reason yet to suspect that these could not be dealt with on a case by case basis, and perhaps entirely satisfactorily by adding individual coding as done for CHISL, CHICL, and LAHCM.
Note the infobox coding is working as it is now, including for Chicago Landmarks. (You're welcome, Tony!) And I don't see any serious inefficiency problems. For example, there is no basis to complain about slow loading of any single article due to it having an NRHP2 infobox on the page. If there was a page with hundreds of invocations of NRHP2 on the single page (which there is not), then efficiency of the NRHP2 code could be a question.
About New Orleans, google searching eventually gets me to this New Orleans webpage describing its landmark commission. However, there is no wikipedia list of New Orleans landmarks other than those that might be covered in List of National Historic Landmarks in Louisiana and List of Registered Historic Places in Louisiana. It is unclear whether New Orleans makes available any list of its landmarks. Note their webpage that should perhaps list landmarks lists none. There is no current demand for any infobox modifications. Local New Orleans editors participated somewhat when I was developing List of NHLs in New Orleans, but I don't believe that there is any wikipedia editor currently wanting to develop the list of local NOLA landmarks.
About Buffalo, I do find a list of Buffalo landmarks on-line at a private site, but here also I don't believe any wikipedia editor is yet interested in beginning to list them.
So, you may be talking about what might be the most elegant solution to a hypothetical problem, but there is no real inefficiency problem present, in my view, and I would appreciate if people tried to appropriately qualify, and not to overstate, their opinions. Actually in my view the hypothetical problem is not fully understood, because we have no real experience in serving local designation needs. In particular there is no local designation infobox besides the LOCAL1 that i have just started for some LAHCM sites, so we have no understanding of coordination issues between NRHP infobox and a local one, and of issues with local editors and specialized local needs. It might be most efficient, in terms of programming time, to jerry-rig solutions for a couple local designations and see what needs eventually become clear, before investing a lot in the perfect solution. Currently, about the Chicago Landmarks, I believe our current solution meets 100% of any need so-far-stated by Tony (which was just for a color bar at top of infobox, and for a date designated).
I do agree Other1, Other2, Other3 would definitely be helpful to offer, if they could be programmed. The "chicl=yes" type of input is awkward, yes, but that is in line with input of "nhl=yes", "nmon=yes", "nhs=yes" etc., which i understood was set up that way because of programming considerations (which could change if we received some additional programming knowledge). All of those inputs are awkward and it would be nice to figure out how to program NRHP2 differently for all of them. NRHP2 requires this format of input, while the original NRHP infobox does not, I don't really understand why.
I suggest and request leaving the chicl, chisl, lahcm coding as it is now, for now, at least until Other1, Other2, Other3 are programmed. After that is done, i expect it will still not be obvious that chicl, chisl, lahcm direct support should be dropped, but that discussion can and should wait until the NRHP2 programming support for Other1, Other2, Other3 is developed. By all means, Dudeman, go ahead and program for Other1, Other2, Other3 if you like. By the way I created Template:infobox NRHP3 to test code, feel free to re-use that to test code for this, before wrapping back into NRHP2. doncram (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You are way offbase. The fact that lists do not exist is not the point. The thing that matters is whether we could improve articles by making the infobox better. The answer is yes people from anywhere could improve their articles if we corrected the template. Many NRHPs and NHLs have article in cities other than Chicago and LA. Each one could be improved if we cleaned up this infobox to facilitate delivery of the proper information in infobox form.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I grew up in Buffalo and do a lot of Buffalo articles. When I was last in Buffalo, I added a lot of images to Ellicott Square Building and created Lafayette Square, Buffalo. Both could be future local historic sites. It is in no way an overstatement to say that people in cities other than Chicago and LA edit articles on NRHPs and NHLs. If this is a useful template, we should enable them the benefit of adding local designations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The only reason Chicago and LA/CA landmarks are the only ones to ever come up is that we've never offered them. Now that apparently we're offering them, it's almost inevitable that others will want a bar. I get that the code is working now... and will continue to work in the future with a case-by-case basis. I don't have a problem with that fact. I'm just saying there's a better way to make it work without the case-by-case basis.
As Tony said, just because no one has made a list yet doesn't mean there will never be a list. Wikipedia is in no way a complete encyclopedia; if it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The main thing that Tony and I are trying to say is that as time goes on (maybe weeks, maybe months, maybe years), people will want more designations. Yes, it will continue to work if we just add them on one by one, but if we use the "other" parameters, we never have to worry about it again. There isn't an inefficiency problem at present, but we're saying that over the long-term, there will be. If we tackle the problem now, we avoid getting into a mess and a mass reprogramming later.
Your statement about meeting 100% of the need is precisely what we're trying to say. Yes, hard-coding for the 3 present designations is working, and now we know what we need. Since we know the basic need, we can modify the programming to give the parameters that are needed for any designation - not just the 3 right now.
About the awkward input: Yes all the nrhp2 and nps inputs are different than the old nrhp. The main reason for incorporating the "designation=yes" format was to allow multiple designations. The way I see it is that all the nrhp and nps designations' bars/styles are coded into the box, so you can just be like "Ok, infobox, I want this style that you already know." The purpose of using the "other" designations is to allow an editor to create his/her own style and make the infobox display it. We could change all the "designation=yes" inputs to require all the "name", "date", "color", "abbreviation", and "link" parameters, but since the designations are central to the theme of the infobox, simply saying "nhl=yes" bypasses all this.
What I'm trying to say is that there is a set number of nrhp and nps designations that will more likely than not remain constant; therefore, we know everything about them we need and can hard-code them and forget about them. The number of local designations can grow and grow as the number of cities grow and grow. Since the number of cities/local designations is not constant, we don't know everything we need to know about each one and can't hard-code them because the job will never be finished. If we allow the editor to type in any designation now, the job is finished. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Dudeman. I'll comment on another accomodation or two to make, that i think will help with coordinating to future local designation infoboxes, below.
More to TonyTheTiger: the title of this section uses "Wrong" and you call me offbase. Per merriam-webster definition of offbase that term also means wrong. I don't really want to get into an argument, but I think it is on the edge of being rude to use those terms. I see nothing "wrong" about what I have said, which was mainly we don't need to get into a panic about ruling out accomodating local designations, there is not a huge urgency of requests and there is not any huge inefficiency that is a problem in any imminent way. And, like i said, I found the tone of the previous discussion here and at WT:NRHP to be a bit distasteful and overstated: that is an expression of my feeling and you cannot seriously be saying i am wrong to have that feeling, it is my feeling. Again, you're welcome Tony for our having accomodated your request. doncram (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Other" designations available at Template:Infobox nrhp3 for now

I just coded the "other1", "other2", and "other3" designations at Template:Infobox nrhp3. I didn't want to copy the code over to this as there are currently several articles that use the chicl, chisl, and lahcm parameters (most appear to be at User:Doncram/Sandbox4). IMO, we should change all the articles that use the chicl, chisl, and lahcm format over to infobox nrhp3 format before we copy the code over to nrhp2. When all the boxes include the inputs necessary for nrhp3, we can simply change all the 3's to 2's using the "What links here" section of nrhp3, and the transfer will be complete. Chicago Board of Trade Building, Manzanar, and Hollywood Studio Club already implement nrhp3, so if you want an example, go to one of them. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for developing these. I am thinking that another pair of parameters may be needed to coordinate with future local infoboxes. For NRHPs, we include NRHP referernce number. For LAHCM's the monument number is also important, and i included it (labelled LAHCM site#) in the LOCAL1 infobox as applied at Faith Bible Church, Northridge, California. As the LAHCM list and set of articles grows, I will probably want to have their infoboxes include the number, which is a salient part of the identification of the site, more salient than is the NRHP refnum for NRHP sites. Also the California Historic Landmark number, as in "No. 312 John Muir Home" is rather highly emphasized on plaques and in the main source, California Historic Landmarks, a 346 page book on them put out by the California State Parks' Office of Historic Preservation.
So, for each of the Other1, Other2, Other3 designations, I am thinking that something like Other1_number_name and Other1_number arguments ought to be allowed.
I expect this would apply also for Chicago Landmarks, although I don't know for sure if there is a prominent site / plaque numbering system for them too. Anyhow, for any local designation that does have a numbered list, it will be natural for a wikipedian who is addressing them to include the numbers in the LOCAL1 or similar infobox for all the sites that are not also NRHPs, and then to want the numbers to appear also in the NRHP infoboxes for the few sites that are also NRHPs. doncram (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I just added "designated_other1_number", "designated_other2_number", and "designated_other3_number" to nrhp3. The box displays {{{designated_othern_abbr}}} and a number sign (CL #, LAHCM #). An example can be found on Manzanar. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Seeing the numbers used for Manzanar and for Campo de Cahuenga (just added), it looks to me like combining the date and number info might possibly be even better. So the arguments would be the same, but perhaps it would show: "Designated LAHCM #29: 04 Apr, 1964". The programming would have to allow for either the date argument to be missing or for the number argument to be missing. It happens, by the way, that California Historical Monument dates may not generally be available, they are not given in the state's book about them and it is an unusual reference that supports the 1972 date for CHISL for Manzanar. What do you think? doncram (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe it would be simpler and better to just show the number as part of the main color bar, so "L.A. Cultural-Historic Monument #131" would show up top, for Dunbar Hotel, instead of putting it with the date or in a separate row below. If i or another wikipedia editor prefers that, we can just skip use of the number field, and include it in the existing name field. Let me try that for a few.... doncram (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be down in the info section with the NRHP refnum; it appears to me as if that's where all the numbers would go. If you were reading through the info section, you'd get to NRHP Reference# (btw, why is there no space? Should there be one?) and then you might wonder, "Well what's the CL #?... or the LAHCM #?"... If those numbers were right below, you wouldn't have to look very far.
If the numbers are placed with the "Designated ____:" line, to me it seems to just throw the number out there. Above, the box stated that the site was a CL but never mentions its number (exactly how the box handles NRHP designation). If in the designated line we include the number, it's just thrown in there out of nowhere IMO (like it's a given) and easier to leave unreferenced. The number is definitely not a given and needs to be referenced just as the NRHP # is. Separating the two lines, IMO, puts more significance on the number and allows for easier and more uniform referencing. If the number was included in the "designated" line, the ref tag would be in the bolded heading, not the normal text, unlike all the other refs in the infobox.
Also, putting them local numbers in the header would take away uniformity with all the other NRHP articles' infoboxes. If we include local designation numbers in the NRHPs with local designations, should we not include the NRHP # in all NRHP infoboxes? I don't think so. This, above all, is an NRHP infobox - not a local designation box. Maybe you could implement these changes in LOCAL1? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think a difference is that no one knows or uses the NRHP reference numbers. The goal should be to coordinate with / serve other designations too. Note, for example, the National Park Service's nation-wide list of National Historic Landmarks in PDF, cited in all the list-articles on NHLs, does not. It is an 8-digit bureaucratic code. For local designations like LAHCM, however, the landmarks are numbered from #1 on up, and the number is meaningful and prominently used. The PDF document listing LAHCMs presents them in number order. And for another example of number use, there is a a blogger creating blog articles from No. 1 up to No. 149 or so, so far, of the 856 LAHCM sites. So, leave the NRHP refnum as it is. But part of the title of any LAHCM or CHISL seems to be the Monument number. As for consistency concerns, the NRHP infobox should aim to provide consistency with local designation infoboxes where possible. I will consult with Los Angeles people about designing the LOCAL1 infobox serving up the LAHCMs, but think i will probably soon include numbers in the LAHCM title color bar.
An example now is San Pedro Municipal Ferry Building which puts LAHCM #146 in the LAHCM title color bar. That looks good to me. doncram (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean now. I thought you were talking about putting the number in the bar that displays the name ("San Pedro Municipal Ferry Building" in the above example). I agree with you now. I'll add that in a second. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The numbers are now displayed in the title bar. This is done automatically by inputting a number to designated_othern_number; the number is displayed both in the info section and in the title section. If no number is inputted, the title bar still works, and no functionality is altered. It took me a few tries to get the linking, parentheses, and spacing right, but I believe it's all working perfectly now. I changed San Pedro Municipal Ferry Building to reflect the edits, and Manzanar is kind of interesting. Thanks for the suggestion! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the NRHP2 update. All switched over to call NRHP2 now, no infobox links to NRHP3 any more. doncram (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Parentheses around NHL, LAHCM, etc designations

I am wondering why there are parentheses around the NHL, NMON, LAHCM, CHISL, etc. designations in the title color bars for each of them. There are no parentheses around "U.S. National Register of Historic Places", which looks better to me. I am thinking the parentheses should be dropped.

I don't think they should. The reason NRHP doesn't have parentheses around it is because that's the top designation. All the others have parentheses because they're sub-designations. I see that the local designation has nothing to do with the NRHP, but in some ways, I also view it as a sub-designation. NRHP is the most important designation, so it isn't parenthesized. The parentheses are like saying "and the site is also a ______".... IMO. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this oughta be revisited; the parentheses are not helpful. They do convey that the NRHP is primary somehow, but IMO the NRHP designation is often not the primary designation for a site. For example, for most NHLs, NHSs, NBs, NBPs, etc, the NRHP designation is lower-level. Also see discussion further below now about IUCN sites. Anyhow, I think the parentheses should be dropped everywhere. It's a sufficient disadvantage to use of NRHP2 template, that if I were participating in a Featured Article nomination or review for an article that involved other designations I would come back here to insist upon the change, or I would create another splitoff from NRHP2 in order to be able to drop the parentheses. doncram (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions: coordinates

Also, can you have the coordinates appear in the upper right of the article just like {{infobox nrhp}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
About the coordinates thing: Sure I can add it in, but I personally don't think it's necessary. The coordinates are already listed in the infobox, and some articles display the coordinates in other locations as well; there are more than enough links to the coordinate page. If, though, a consensus is reached that the coordinates should be displayed at the top of the page, I'll gladly add it in. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand that request. Why is it desired? I do know that there are many articles where there are double coordinates, one from the NRHP infobox and one from elsewhere in the article, where they both display in overlapping fashion at the top right of the article, which is a problem. doncram (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not in favor of adding the coordinates at the top. I have spent considerable time on the NY NHL list trying to fix articles with overlapped coordinates at the top. I would be in favor of having the info in the infobox (including coordinates) more apparent when you first reach a page....I've read something somewhere about a picture, info, map order. IMO, that would be the best af all worlds, offering picture AND map, not either/or as well as having the infobox serve the purpose of having the info included available at first glance. Lvklock (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Locmapin control over displaying a map or not

Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas#Jefferson Memorial, the locmapin parameter controls whether a map is shown or not, given that coordinates are included in an article. A blank for locmapin suppresses the map display. This is okay by me. It is essential, in my view, that an editor can choose to suppress the map display, and this does it. I am including this link here, to document the discussion. Discussion about NRHP2 has developed in several Talk pages. I haven't checked if the basic documentation of NRHP2 covers this feature adequately, yet. doncram (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Changing order from Image-Map-Info to Image-Info-Map

Per Dudeman's comments i think at WT:NRHP, it is not easy to offer multiple orders. But it should be easy to implement the alternative order instead. Per discussion at WT:NRHP and elsewhere, including some I had just within last 24 hours with Ivoshandor on some article, it seems 100% consensus is that Image-Info-Map order is preferred. Could that be implemented? doncram (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So 3 people (you, IvoShanddor, and Lvklock) now equals 100% consensus? I can implement it, but not at the current time. I'm not really able to spend a long time online right now because I'm not at home. No clue when I'll return, but when I do, I'll try to edit the code. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I added a comment about this with the coordinates comment in Suggestion section above before I read this (I may have been simultaneously typing). Anyway, no problem with timeframe. I really appreciate all the effort you've put into this. As far as consensus, I often find it a frustrating thing here in Wikiworld....if not enough people care enough to comment, then the consensus is often based on only a few, as here. I don't know enough about the mechanics of Wikipedia to know if there's someplace where we should present these things to get more people to comment. Thanks again for all your effort on this. Lvklock (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well, i don't mean to overstate a consensus, but i do think that others have expressed the same preference, too, and i don't recall any statements of preference for the Image-Map-Info order from any reviewers of any NRHP2 articles. I think i had the 100% term at the tip of my tongue because in my own mind i was thinking that in 100% of the articles using NRHP2 that i have reviewed, i thot Image-Info-Map would be a better order. Anyhow, if you disagree about it being consensus, or if your preference is otherwsie, please do say so.
By the way, i am tinkering also with a LOCAL1 template, implemented for example in Faith Bible Church, Northridge, California for sites that are L.A. Historic-Cultural Monuments but not also NRHPs. doncram (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Working correctly?

Does anyone know why the color on the infobox in Fort Matanzas National Monument is not the nmon color?--Appraiser (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't use the nrhp_type parameter with this infobox. Instead, to display the nmon bar, type "nmon = yes". I just edited the article, so if you'd like an example, go there. This is all explained in the documentation of this infobox. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks--Appraiser (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

nmon=yes

nmon=yes adds Category:National Monuments of the United States. I propose eliminating that feature since we now have National Monument categories for each state. This may be an issue with nmem, nhs, and nhp too, if sub-categories are broken out. Any objection to removing the feature for these four classes?--Appraiser (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

NHS already has the same problem (see Category:National Historic Sites of the United States). NHP and NMEM seem to only have a national list, and therefore no problem (see Category:National Historical Parks of the United States and Category:National Memorials of the United States). So, let's remove the feature for only NHS and NMON.--Appraiser (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
How about just taking out all of the automatic categorization from this infobox and letting the editor add categories? When creating a page, I normally think of all the categories that the article would fall under and before adding any information, put them in. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you two are saying the same thing. Within NMON=yes, drop the feature (sub-feature?) that adds the category. We still need NMON=yes for what else it does....
Oh, hmm, now i see Dudemanfellabra is suggesting dropping ALL of the automatic categorizations, like for NHLs and otherwise. That would have to be done carefully, with changes to all the articles that call this template. In a general sense, I like the idea of dropping the automatic categorization. I haven't liked how the NRHP template (and i suppose also this NRHP2 template) forces where the "Category: National Historic Landmarks" appears in the list of categories that appears within an article. That takes away control from editors over how the categories should appear in a given article. Appraiser is the one who really focusses on categories and who should have an idea if this more drastic change should be implemented for NRHP and NRHP2 both. doncram (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
To clarify my position - I'd be in favor of changing both templates (or all 3?) such that they don't automatically add any categories. I believe most of the articles already are coded to add them manually, so no changes would be required. However there are probably some NHLs that rely on the automatic categorization. In the near-term, I'd just like the NHS and NMON automatic categorization to stop. Before doing that to NHLs I'd probably print out all the state NHL category lists, so that they could be compared to the same lists after the change to identify any dropped articles. I have already checked all Category:National Historic Sites of the United States and Category:National Monuments of the United States and there will be no ill-effect from the change. (P.S. I didn't mean to imply that the other features would go away - just the auto-categorization.)--Appraiser (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I just realized that I'd like the auto-categorization of "Historic Districts" to remain. Most of our Districts currently rely on the infobox for that category.--Appraiser (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

nhld-cp?

There's a color and a title, (U.S. Registered Historic District Contributing Property), which is appropriate for regular contributing properties (CPs) in regular NRHP districts.

But we have a need for indicating (U.S. National Historic Landmark District Contributing Property), which is not met. Right now, it is needed for Tinkers Creek Aqueduct within Ohio and Erie Canal Historic District, a NHLD.

I think i have expressed this need before, but it hasn't seemed urgent before. Right now, with an attempt to complete the starting of NHL articles by July 4, it seems more urgent, or at least it would be helpful in fixing up some situations. doncram (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the new template allows multiple color bars, couldn't you just have a bar for NHLD and another bar for CP?--Appraiser (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid that would imply that the site is a NHLD, and also that it is a CP (whatever that is). I like how the color and title works for (U.S. Registered Historic District Contributing Property), on two text lines but within one color region, want similar (but a different color of course). I guess i should just pic a color and program it? doncram (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not just change the RHDCP bar to read simply "(Contributing Property)" and add that bar along with the NHLD bar? People would know it's part of a NHLD and they would also know it was a contributing property. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid that would imply, visually with 2 colors, that the site was itself a NHLD, and also that the site was a Contributing Property. I believe most readers don't have the slightest idea that a Contributing Property is part of a NHLD or a Registered Historic District. I just edited a nhldcp option into the template, foregoing trials in a NRHP3 version. Just edited a top bar for that option, nothing separate for date, as I think for a nhldcp you just want to use the regular date options? But if i missed something in the edit, so be it, at least I am sure that my edit won't break NRHP2 for any existing uses. doncram (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary and redundant banners

Per this edit, I must request that we stick to just one federal designation where possible in infobox above-the-image banners. NHLs and NHSes are already included by definition on the Register ... putting all that info on the top of the picture adds nothing save clutter, and having just been through an FA nom where visual clutter in the infobox was an issue we had to address to get the star, I'm especially sensitive. I'm pretty sure that those banners would have to be removed as well to get that article through FAC.

Use them for local desigations, sure, but all that federal stuff is unnecessary. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern about this, though I think there is benefit to including the multiple banners for sites like Grey Towers. It is still a compact presentation that i think is useful for readers, who might click on the banner titles and go and learn about what is a Registered Historic Place, what is an NHS, what is an NHL, etc. It is simply a confusing fact about Grey Towers that it has three Federal designations that all sound kinda similar, though we know they are distinct. Arraying the banners together at least makes that clear: they look similar but are distinct, and they all apply for this site.
This is not an issue for programming the NRHP2 infobox though, right? An editor can choose not to use certain fields in the NRHP2 infobox, so that fewer banners show. Although that doesn't stop another editor from adding them back of course. doncram (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Unnecessary and redundant banners for a wider audience.--Appraiser (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

lower and reduced-size map location

While reviewing List of NHLs in TX as part of the current NHL drive, i have to admire the use of a reduced size of a Texas map and the lower placement of that map, in Alamo Mission in San Antonio article. It uses the NRHP map infobox (?) instead of NRHP or NRHP2. Do we have that kind of control on map size options, in the NRHP2 template? Anyhow, it reminds me I have to get around to editing NRHP2 to provide Image-Info-Map order rather than Image-Map-Info order, too, if both image and map are present. doncram (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

map_width... it's in the documentation :P. I haven't gotten around to doing the image-info-map order thing yet.. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

other1, other2, other3 headers with numbers

In the color bar header for California Historical Landmark in NRHP2 infoboxes of Nevada Theatre and Manzanar for example, only "California Historical Landmark" should be wikilinked, not "California Historical Landmark #863". Because the link is to California Historical Landmark, not to "California Historical Landmark #863" (which would be, if anything, a self-link to the same article). I tried editing it here just now for the Other1 fields, but my edits may not have worked properly. Also, for brevity and since #863 shows up at the top, i am dropping the Other1 number display lower down in the infobox. doncram (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My edits got the NRHP2 infobox to show wikilinked "California Historical Landmark" and "#863", but on two lines and left-justified not centered. My edits also left a stray phrase at top of article, outside of infobox, so weren't working properly. I reverted my edits just now, after pasting the work-in-progress to "Template:infobox NRHP3". Help there to accomplish these edits would be appreciated. Please keep discussion here. doncram (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Why shouldn't the number be linked? Having "California Historic Landmark" linked and the number in black text makes the number look out of place. On all the other lines, either the whole line is linked or the whole line isn't. If this line is only half linked, it will be different and not fit in. I support leaving the number linked so that the entire line is either linked or not linked and uniformity is maintained. I'll edit nrhp3 to include the non-linked number, but I still support linking it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I just edited nrhp3 to display the link without the number. Nevada Theatre incorporates nrhp3 instead of nrhp2 for an example. I still think the number should be linked. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the number should not appear there at all. Then it would be analogous to the line above it (NRHP link).--Appraiser (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
See discussion in this section. I support leaving the number in the title bar, and leaving it linked as well. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! for editing NRHP3 to accomodate my preferred presentation, although you don't currently agree that it is the best way to go. I do prefer to show California Historical Landmark numbers in the title bar, as that is in practice the name of the site. And, repeating myself, I prefer that only "California Historical Landmark" be wikilinked, as that is the name of the article the link goes to, and I want it to be clear that this is the article about "California Historical Landmark #863", not some other wikilinked one. I think it looks fine, with the wikilink splitting the line up; it does not bother me that is different than the NRHP or other title bar lines. I think the NRHP refnum should be below, while the California Historical Landmark number does not need to be repeated below (and should not be). doncram (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I still prefer not to link the number, but I'm really impartial. I'm not impartial, though, about leaving the number displaying in the info section by the NRHP refnum. They kind of make a little "section" of all the numbers. If someone was doing a report on the site and just copied/pasted the info section, they wouldn't know the local landmark number. They'd be like so the NRHP number is __________, but I have no clue what the California Landmark number is. The info section is kind of like a "technical information" section, so ALL the technical information should be included. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This then also is not resolved. In my view the repeated number below should be dropped, it is redundant to the display of "California Historical Landmark #293" up top, and i am not so negative about readers' ability to find the number there. We need some kind of process to make decisions here, in these cases where Dudemanfellabra and I have differing views. Perhaps some others' comments could help. doncram (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) By the way, I notice that AlbertHerring has been using the Other1 feature to note Virginia Historic Landmark designation in articles such as Debtors' Prison (Worsham, Virginia). This is as Dudemanfellabra and TonyTheTiger hoped, without requiring new programming of an explicit VHL option as my original views would have now required. Cheers, doncram (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't been resolved

We never resolved this problem. Is there consensus to keep the numbers linked or not? I see that User:Rosiestep has been creating articles with nrhp3 instead of nrhp2. We need to come to a consensus and transfer all articles over to nrhp2 so as not to have more than one infobox in use. Currently Home of Lotta Crabtree, Mount Saint Mary's Convent and Academy, and Nevada Theatre use nrhp3. I'm gonna drop a comment on Rosiestep's talk page and inform her of this. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Home of Lotta Crabtree seems not to be an NRHP at all, so i switched it to use Template:infobox local1. It is repeating myself to say again that the numbers cannot be part of the link to California Historical Landmark or whatever, or it is misrepresenting where the link is going. It would be nice if someone else would chime in to verify that "California Historical Landmark #10" looks fine and is preferred to "California Historical Landmark #10". doncram (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

syntax error

Can anyone see why Annaberg Historic District doesn't show up as an historic district?--Appraiser (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

IUCN Categories of Protected Area and List of National Natural Landmarks

Should/Could we add these to the template? dm (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead. That's what our other1, other2, and other 3 features are for. For any given article, you can add up to 3 "special" designations. IUCN and NNL would fall under this category. I do wonder, however, if we should include IUCN categories hard-coded and use a IUCN_cat parameter.. I mean we do have NPS designations.. why not IUCN? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I know about the other1, etc, but the IUCN seems larger than a "local" designation. In fact, putting it in there makes this a much more general purpose template, it probably could replace the existing protectedareas template. As for the NNL, it sure smells a lot like all the other NHL, NHS, etc. dm (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I think eventually we should replace all Protected Area templates with this one for NRHP sites. I especially like the ability to show a photo, state map, and U.S. all in the infobox. The existing Protected Area boxes lack a state map.--Appraiser (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I have a proposal for how to add this in: There could be a type parameter with valid parameters nrhp or protected (maybe other for different main designations in the future). Depending on the value of this parameter, either the current NRHP bar or a new Protected Area bar would display. Currently the NRHP bar is static on all articles with this template, and there is no way to remove it; that's because all the articles that are handled with this infobox are on the NRHP. With the addition of IUCN categories, the box could possibly handle non-NRHP sites, so the NRHP bar could no longer be static.
Note, I have split off and somewhat developed "Template:infobox local1" to handle some sites that are California Historical Landmarks or Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments but which are not also NRHPs, and which hence cannot be served by the current NRHP2 infobox which forces display of NRHP and forces use of NRHP color in the top bar showing name of site. If the current infobox could be changed to allow different top types other than NRHP, then probably the splitoff could be merged back in. doncram (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The sub-designations (NHL, NMON, NHD - and now CAT1, CAT2, etc.) would relate to the main designation. There would have to be a IUCN_cat parameter (valid values 1-5), which would display the correct category in a bar underneath the Protected Area bar. No site can be in more than one category, can it? If not, the above will work, but if they can, the code will have to be like cat1=yes, cat2=yes, etc. instead of IUCN_cat=n. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Any more thoughts on this? I believe a site can be in only one category, but am not sure dm (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sutter's Mill doesn't use NRHP2 template, but clicking on the coordinates at top right works for me now, anyhow. The article Coloma, California which does use NRHP2, and which includes covering Sutter's Mill, has coordinates that work for me too. Sounds like an ISP problem on your end or a temporary server error somewhere else? doncram (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry I meant Sutter's Fort. Manzanar, Gateway Arch, Fox Theatre (Atlanta) and Pico Canyon Oilfield also have that problem. Fox Theatre (Atlanta) did not have the problem the first time I tried it. Your example Coloma, California also was OK the first time I tried it, but it doesn't work now. Art LaPella (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be a problem with the {{coord}} template, which Infobox nrhp2 uses to display the coordinates. I'd drop a comment over there if I were you. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I see, the coords at top right of Coloma, California article are generated by a Geolinks link, which works fine. The coords appearing within the NRHP2 infobox in same article, though, generate that Fastcgi error. doncram (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I have posted at Template talk:Coord, hopefully there will be a response there. doncram (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Fastcgi error
From what I can see, the problem is due to a "malformed" URL (at least from ToolServer's point of view). Specifically, it appears that whether a "region:" coordinates parameter is supplied (even if blank) or not is what triggers the "Fastcgi" error on ToolServer. If, when, or where possible, supplying a region: parameter (preferrably with an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 character country code followed by '-' and an ISO 3166-2 2-character subdivision code, for instance region:US-AK for Alaska, region:US-OH for Ohio, ...) But even supplying "region:" without a code generates a URL which does not get the Fastcgi error.

LeheckaG (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am investigating on ToolServer what happened... In the meantime, I updated {{Infobox nrhp2}}'s {{Coord}} to pass a "region:US_type:landmark" instead of just "type:landmark" (this should "temporarily" workaround the Fastcgi error). Ideally, Infobox nrhp2 should invoke Coord with "region:US-XX" where XX is the 2-character US state or territory abbreviation. Potentially, ToolServer's geohack map services use the region (and subregion) to determine which subset of available maps. LeheckaG (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
After making the Infobox nrhp2 (to workaround the Fastcgi Protocol Error by supplying region:US_type:landmark) update, I tested Sutter's Fort, and it now works. I am at a "loss" finding the specific ToolServer change which caused it to "break". Knowing when the issue was first seen would help narrow it down? In the meantime, I am contacting those who I know made recent changes to see if they can help or have any insite into the ToolServer cause. LeheckaG (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Infobox nrhp had supplied region:US_type:landmark, for some reason that was dropped in nrhp2? My update to nrhp2 added it (so the 2 templates are "in sync" in that regard). Both should be updated to supply Coor(d) with region:US-XX where XX is the ISO 3166-2 code (basically the 2 letter postal abbreviation for a state) if or when known. The "root cause" of the Toolserver Fastcgi error appears to be some performance issue between servers (when region: is not supplied), and others are looking into it. LeheckaG (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Coord parameters

A while ago ... I was asked about making a change similar to:

I updated Infobox nrhp2 and Infobox nrhp2 with (2) additional parameters:

  • coord_parameters=
  • coord_display=

coord_parameters= defaults to:

  • region:US_type:landmark

and can overridden by supplying appropriate parameters, See: {{Coord/doc}}

coord_display= defaults to:

  • inline

and can be overridden by supplying either:

  • inline,title
  • title

I tried to implement coord_format= for Coord's format=, but apparently "format" might be a magic word in this context?

Since display=inline is already a coord default, a better implementation would be to conditional include display= but getting the # if parser function syntax correct ... with the "fun" I already had trying to get "format=" ...

Changes, comments ... ? LeheckaG (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need the parameter, format, and display parameters to be left to editor discretion. I mean, if we leave every single aspect to editor discretion, we may as well just move this template over to simply {{Infobox}}. The coordinates display correctly (now) as is - without any addition. Why fix what's not broken? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It was and is "broken", See: Template:Coord/doc, specifically:
  • "{{Coord}} is used by tools which parse the raw Wikipedia database dumps, such as Google Earth. To ensure that the coordinates are parsed correctly display=title must be used."
For more information on how it works "behind the scenes", See:
The problem is that ONE and ONLY ONE set of coordinates in a Wiki article should have display=title.
"As was" - what was broken is that coordinates supplied in Infobox nrhp2 did not display in the article's "titlebar". Only Geo (microformat) coordinates in a Wikipedia article's title bar are used to geocode that page (i.e why some Wikipedia pages show up on Google Earth or Maps and other services while many other Wikipedia pages do not). The "dumps" occur infrequently, so "corrected" articles can take "months" to show up. I would like to change the default from display= default from inline to inline,title; but there are several circumstances where there are more than one Infobox or set of coordinates in an article, so it is "mandatory" that a mechanism be there so that only one set of coordinates is the "title" which all the others are turned off. So I did NOT set =title as the default, since it could "break" many articles. coord_display= is a reasonable way to do so, as to what the default should be - that is what I am asking? either the current =inline default, or my preference would be =inline,title default (where it can be overridden with coord_display=inline when necessary).
The only reason that the display=title was disabled was BECAUSE of the fact that so many different things display coordinates in the title bar. If you can come up with a system that will only put the coordinates in the title bar if there's not already anything up there, I'm all for it. Until then, I don't think the default should be to include them in the title bar. I'm fine with letting the editor decide if they're up there, but default should be inline. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, why I did not enable it - knowing that while a display=title default would help "stub" articles, it would probably break many others. LeheckaG (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
So the default should be left at display=inline. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
As to coord_parameters, the template cannot "guess" as to what the correct region:, type:, scale:, source:, ... are. ToolServer recently got "overloaded" with too many blank/empty region: database requests causing an error message to be displayed instead of the appropriate GeoTemplate (a.k.a. map selection page). When an accurate region: matching the coordinates is not supplied, then ToolServer does a database lookups from the coordinates to try to figure out what the appropriate region: should be, when too many requests come as once, then it times out generating error messages. So a few days ago I "hard-coded" a region: with a default of "region:US" which shortened the query to US instead of global. Likewise with type:, scale:, source:, ... SOMEONE needs to enter them - the template cannot "guess". Whether it is preferable that they be separate "mandatory" fields, and the template then concatenates them together, or whether the editor supplies them in one field like coord_parameters? But somehow they should get supplied, defaulting them or omitting them completely both cause problems.
I see what you mean now. I think there should be separate parameters, though. The format of manually inputting coord_parameters is a bit bleh and doesn't fit in with the other parameters. A separate coord_region=, coord_type=, etc., parameter would be preferred over coord_parameters to me. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I wish there was a parser function or template so that contributors could supply standard abbreviations and they could be expanded where needed, for instance 2-letter state abbreviations are used for the region:US-XX code while Location map template expects a State name. i.e. so that a parameter like "State" could be supplied once, and then re-used several places. If that were done, then separate fields make a lot of sense. LeheckaG (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
You could make a template haha.. {{ConvertState}} or something. All you'd have to do is make a list of 50 parser functions:
{{#switch: {{{statename}}}
| Alabama = AL
| Akaska = AK
| etc.. }}
...where statename is passed to the template, compared to the list of 50 states, then returned as the matching abbreviation. The template could be called from within the coord section of this template's code, so the editor wouldn't have to worry about the region parameter. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yea so I just got bored and created the template haha. It handles all state names including District of Columbia :). The editor can supply either the full name (Alabama) of the state or the abbreviation (AL), and the template will return the other. I implemented the template into the region parameter of the coordinates. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Neat, a very good general tool. Since U.S. Postal and ISO 3166-2 abbreviations cover a little more ground, I expanded ConvertState and /doc scope to also include the other US and CA abbreviations in either: ISO 3166-2:US or United States postal abbreviations as well as ISO 3166-2:CA or Canadian subnational postal abbreviations. I am not sure about its include size? (i.e. not sure how the Wiki parser handles switch) so I removed extra whitespace but not newlines from the sections which I added.
I can see where it could be extended to either handle other "English" geographic regions? or possibly be extended to handle other abbreviations/code types. To generalize abbreviations/codes further without "bloating", perhaps a template parameter to specify which type of abbreviation or code one wishes? which would then transclude the appropriate ConvertState/XXX where XXX are the various either geographic regions or abbreviation types. Ideally, the same ConvertState/ "tree" could handle both, so perhaps "ConvertAbbrev/" instead ? and current/updated ConvertState could be split and renamed into ConvertAbbrev/ISO 3166-2:CA and either ConvertAbbrev/ISO 3166-2:US ? Which would be called by ConvertAbbrev|abbreviation_type_name ? like "ISO 3166-2:CA" or "CanadaPost" (a redirect), likewise for "ISO 3166-2:US" and USPS (a redirect). That way other abbreviations: NHRP, NHL, ... could be placed in their own similar table/template. In the long-run, a better implementation would be to place such "standard" abbreviations and their expanded form in a Wiki MySQL table and provide a parser extension to perform a database query. Thoughts? LeheckaG (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If "template/sub-templates" are used, at least whatever positional parameters are supplied should be passed on to the sub-templates, that way more of a nested tree could be done. ConvertAbbrev/code1/code2 ... or parameters used in some other way when necessary. Not sure whether Wiki has an "all parameters" synonym like: *,@, ... ? if not, at least 1 through 9 ? LeheckaG (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently (without a coord_format=) parameter, if the editor only supplies coordinates with decimal degrees, then they only display as decimal degrees, if they supply degrees, minutes, and seconds, then they display as degrees, minutes, and seconds. There is sometimes a problem when they are supplied as DM (a case which not all templates handle properly). There has been and will continue to be debates between more conventional/standard DMS which is more human-readable (it conveys more "information") or decimal (which is easier to cut and paste). So either set of coordinates are accepted as input, which results in some displaying as DMS and some displaying as decimal. The point of a coord_format= parameter is that it then permits either format output. So if WP NRHP or other WikiProjects adopt a format for output, a "bot" can go through the infoboxes in relevant articles to force an output format without modifying the Infobox template source code. LeheckaG (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Dudemanfellabra figured out the template coord_format= coding, appears it had to do with several previous positional parameters defaulting to empty instead of a value. So it is currently documented and implemented as well. LeheckaG (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't get what you're trying to do with the format parameter haha.. as the template is now, one can input coordinates in decimal or DMS format, and they'll be displayed in that format. If we used the format parameter, all coordinates would need to be inputted in DMS format, and could be displayed in either format... so for every article that wanted to display coordinates in dec format, the editor would have to convert the dec inputs to DMS to input into the template.. and then the template would RE-convert them to dec to display... too much trouble in my opinion. Why not just display in the format that they're inputted? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Coordinates can be input in either decimal or dms; and coord_format=dms sets the display to dms, and coord_format=dec sets the display to decimal. As I posted somewhere above, the default should probably be to omit the format=coord_format field and only include it when coord_format= defined and non-empty. For me, the intention is to allow either format to be input, while allowing the capability of setting a different display format. Just an option ... making the underlying coord parameters visible to contributors. LeheckaG (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I just realized that you can input coordinates to the coord template in either decimal or dms. I wasn't aware of that before. Since this is true, the coordinates parameter can simply be deleted. New parameters latitude and longitude can be added in case people want to add coordinates in decimal format. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I just added the latitude and longitude parameters and deleted the coordinates one. Now the editor can input coordinates in either decimal or dms, and choose to display in either as well. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the "last" defined/non-zero lat_ or long_ field can be supplied in decimal without the additional latitude= or longitude= fields. i.e. lat_degrees= and long_degrees= can be furnished in decimal and the _minutes and seconds_fields can either be supplied as "empty" or 0. lat_ and long_ need to be "balanced" i.e. both in either DMS, DM, or D format, trailing fields after a decimal can be either empty or 0, but both lat_ and long_ need to have the same last field: (D.d,D.d ; D M.m,D M.m ; D M S.s,D M S.s).
One can even supply either lat_ or long_ in dms while supplying the other in decimal degrees or decimal minutes - PROVIDED that the following "balancing" minutes or seconds fields are supplied as zero. Such usage is "non-standard", but works. (D M S.s,D.d 0 0 or D.d 0 0,D M S.s ; D M.m,D.d 0 or D.d 0,D M.m ; ... ) LeheckaG (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oregon locator map

Right now when "locmapin" is set to "Oregon", this template calls Image:Oregon Locator Map with US.PNG for a locator map. The portion of this image file that displays the whole US is low-res, blurry, and an unnecessary space-eater. Can the template instead call Image:Oregon Locator Map.PNG, which omits the US portion? Ipoellet (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This infobox actually doesn't control which map is displayed. To remedy the situation, I suggest dropping a comment over at Template talk:Location map. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

NRHP but for owner objection; and NRHP delistings

Some cases have come up where a site is found to be NRHP-eligible but the owner objects at the last minute. So, for Kewpee Restaurant in Ohio, there is a NRIS entry including refnum and everything else, but status is owner objection. For Charles Scribner's Sons Building in New York City, I am not sure if there is a U.S. refnum but the building is covered in the New York State system and has a NYS reference number.

For these, an "ownerobjection = yes" option within NRHP2 infobox would be helpful. It should not use NRHP color, but rather no color. It should perhaps show "National Register of Historic Places-eligible (owner objection)". These should show an eligible date, rather than an added/listed date.

Also there are delisted properties, whose infoboxes should also show no color and which should show a delisting date as well as the listing date.

Examples of these variations are being mentioned at wp:NRIS info issues. doncram (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

List of National Natural Landmarks changes to template?

There will be a fair amount of work done on these articles soon, and having a good infobox will help. Should we split out a new one, or could changes to this one remove the default of nrhp and just require everything to be defined? dm (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the name of this infobox is NRHP.. therefore it should only handle articles about places listed on the NRHP. It has been suggested before that the NRHP banner at the top should be made dynamic, but in my opinion, if we were going to do this, we should rename the template to {{National Designations}} or something. Non NRHP articles with an infobox named NRHP just doesn't sound right to me. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggested using the Protected areas template to Dmadeo, instead, and I think got him started okay in using that instead. doncram (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

sandbox and testcases

Per a helpful suggestion from Dinoguy1000 at [[Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot needed for merger of {{Infobox nrhp2}} and {{Infobox nrhp}}]], i started Template:Infobox nrhp/sandbox and Template:Infobox nrhp/testcases to be used for developing updates to this nrhp infobox. Dinoguy1000's full comment, with useful examples, was:

Common practice for template testing is to create a /sandbox subpage copy of the template in question (e.g. Template:Infobox nrhp/sandbox) and a bunch of testcases on a /testcase subpage (e.g. Template:Infobox nrhp/testcases). See, for example, {{Nihongo}} (sandbox, testcases), {{Navbox}} (sandbox, testcases), and so forth. --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

doncram (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_NRHP/Archive_2&oldid=1096788694"