User talk:Dudemanfellabra/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Agreement

I agree with your comments here, but I'm not going to say anything on that page. --Orlady (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fully articled lists

Hi, thanks for setting up a windowing system for display of the fully articled lists at wp:NRHP. You may see I just made a few edits further there. For one thing, it was very hard for anyone to edit the first section as there was no [edit] button to click on, so i inserted a header.

Also, in the first section I dropped the lists having fewer than 25 articles. I am sure there are many more small lists that are "fully articled". If I understand what you did, you merged up several one-item lists and other short lists that were sitting in the by-state 90% list below. Those I had identified as the biggest 90% one in each state. However I am pretty sure that there are several fully articled lists within North Dakota, within New York, within Pennsylvania, within other states having more than one member, that are larger than those. So the list as presented was not the biggest ones that are fully articled, unless we cut it off. I do believe it may be correct given the 25 cutoff. I don't mind if you want to open this section to include lists with fewer than 25, going all the way down to one (but why would we have a one-article list), if that is a separate window from the second section, and if we launch it with a correct list of such lists. Also maybe we need a footnote to state that as of a certain date, the fully-articled status was achieved. We shouldn't have to bounce Maryland off the list entirely, upon one new listing showing up that is not articled.

Could we talk about this first, then about the next section?

In the second section, I am impressed that you must have done a bunch of counting, to identify how many are currently in each status, and would want to capture that in a footnote saying "as counted by Dudemanfellabra on 3/24/2013" or something like that. But about the second section, I am not sure what you intend the membership criteria should be. I had it set up hoping for it to be a friendly competition where everyone could lookup their state(s) and then strive to increase their local standing, e.g. develop a bigger 90% articled one in their state. It seems good to recognize extraordinarily large collections, and it seems wrong to let a high percentage in a small list-article outweigh a much larger collection. I hoped to have a friendly, easy-to-lookup, easy-to-participate-in thing going on, engaging everyone everywhere. I can't follow what you are thinking how the friendly competition should work. --doncram 00:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll see I just added back the ones under 25 that you removed and made a few other minor edits. I held off on any further edits for now, though, to see your thoughts and/or others'.

What I did with my edit was try to move away from the "by state" system and just include all lists that are 100% articled and all lists that are 90%+ articled--even if more than one from each state is present--exactly like our fully illustrated system works now. That's actually the reason I put them in a scroll box similar to fully illustrated because I anticipated the list growing much larger (in fact, it may need to be moved to its own subpage, like fully illustrated lists are now). Before, there were several lists in the second section that were 100% articled (not just 90%+), so I just moved those up to the fully articled section and your edit removed them completely. I think they should be included, especially since in our fully illustrated section, we show counties with even just one listing. I also added percentages to the 90%+ section, and, yes, I did count a few myself (e.g. New York, Philadelphia, whichever ones didn't have numbers before). No need for a footnote, though.. definitely not one with my name in it.

Essentially I was trying to simplify things so that people who were familiar with the fully illustrated system would fit right in with the fully articled system. Yes, it may be useful to list out sub-lists that are completely/almost fully articled (kind of like Boston is listed under Massachusetts in the fully illustrated NHLs). Maybe we can do that for ND, DC, and NY, all of which are more than 90% articled state wide. I don't necessarily dislike the idea of a competition, but I think it's better to just include every list that's fully/nearly fully articled, exactly like fully illustrated. Let's just do this the way we've been doing everything else for the longest and not make it more complicated than it has to be. If a region is fully articled, put it in the first section; if it's almost fully articled, put it in the second section. No further complications. What do you think?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It completely changes the meaning, to recognize a one-item list being fully articled. In the by-state thing, it is a negative indication that the state is so poorly developed, that the biggest section done is one lousy one-article county. To treat that as some kind of positive thing that should be recognized, as if equal to the huge accomplishments of all of Maryland, most of PA, NY, Detroit, other big areas being done, is a bit ridiculous. Feel proud your big area is done. Feel silly (and then do something about it!) if your area has only a pathetic tiny performance, or no performance.

Actually i don't like the recognition in the fully illustrated system of lists smaller than 20 or so, it is silly IMO. If the goal is consistency, then actually I think a by-state thing should be done for the fully illustrated ones, rather than changing this better, clearer friendly competition thing. The current fully illustrated system shines no light on the states having poor performance, and fails to give credit properly.

Do let's chat more. --doncram 02:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we necessarily make the smaller areas equal by including them on the list with the larger areas. We sort it by number of listings, so if you get all of New York articled, that'll be the first thing people see. In fact, it may be the only thing people see; most people don't even scroll down all the way to get to the lowest numbers anyway. If we did everything by state, everyone would see the biggest list in Alaska first, which only has 16 listings.. far less impressive than all of New York.

A further problem with the "by state" method is that many great accomplishments may not be included because someone else one-upped them. Think of a case when you have two highly illustrated/articled lists in the same state. If you have (using hypothetical numbers) 95.6% of Philadelphia and 94.3% of Pittsburgh completed, both of which have hundreds of listings, both of them are way more notable than the largest list in some other state that only has 15 listings. If only two of the three get to be included on the list--or get to be located near the top of the list--it only makes sense to include Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, not Philadelphia and the other 15-site list.

Of course, you could say that's the point of a competition--to edge out your competitors--but IMO editing here is not a competition; it's a collaboration. You shouldn't be driven to "beat out" your peer to get recognition for fully articling a list; you should be driven to develop quality work regardless of what others are doing. That's one of the reasons why no names are included on either list. The list, being included on the project main page, is targeted at outsiders as if to say "Look at what we've accomplished together" not "Look how great Dudemanfellabra was when he counted all of NY's missing articles" or "Look at how great Doncram was when he helped create all the articles in North Dakota." That's exactly why I feel we should recognize all the fully articled lists rather than just the "top" list in each state.

That's not to say there isn't any wiggle room, though. Maybe there should be some cutoff to both the fully articled and fully illustrated list... in fact I'm pretty sure I've edited the fully illustrated one asserting that before... but I just don't see the benefit of having only one list from each state included. I would also be open to the idea of sorting the 90%+ section by total listings rather than percentage.. the only reason I did it that way with my initial edit to the fully articled section was that the fully illustrated section is organized that way.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Conversation was continued to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Fully articled lists. Thanks for taking it there, and i commented there and will comment more there. But in reply to what you last said here, I appreciate much of what you say, and I like your Pennsylvania conundrum. The idea should be to engender friendly competition (i.e. collaboration), but what if the biggest list that the western PA editor can edit is smaller than the biggest list available to the eastern PA editor, and when those are done the competition is over. So, I would say: allow the "biggest collection" to be reported, that would be a collection of lists of adjacent counties, and then they could keep competing for longer by expanding out from their core starter areas. Building on and in response to what you said above, i kinda suggested that in my comment at wt:NRHP already.

Another thing you share about here is that the 90% section could be sorted by total listings, which I would really agree with. I'd very much prefer to give credit to the biggest accomplishments like NY and PA more fairly, not have them hidden out of scrolling view.

Another thing is to split the fully illustrated/articled subsection from the 90% illustrated/articled section, so they are in separate scrollboxes, so that the top 90% items are not hidden below a zillion small 100% items. I'm not sure you said this exactly, but I expect you'd agree that this subsection splitting would be a help? I may try doing it, but you may be better at implementing it.

I'll reply to your other comment at my Talk page, too. Also by the way i am contacting 25or6to4 about map-making. Thanks! --doncram 14:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Indiana map

The situation of Indiana and Illinois is identical — the search functions don't return address-restricted sites in the results, and they have occasional other omissions (apparently accidental), but both are just as comprehensive as Focus. Some time back, I downloaded all of the Indiana forms that I could find, and exactly nine nominations weren't available. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

After rereading the section on WP:NRHPHELP, I see what you mean. I guess I just didn't read carefully enough before. I've now updated the image.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Monroe County, Pennsylvania

The totals in the state list and the stated number on the county page didn't match up. Monroe County Courthouse was the last site added (by Pubdog who is very reliable). The courthouse is indeed listed. I might check more if there is something wrong, but will likely update the state list (do you know who checks these things?) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had to fix several counties'/states' numbers during this process (and that is actually one of the benefits of doing everything manually at least once... more accuracy). It appears that someone just forgot to update the state/national list when they added that property, which sometimes happens. I think typically User:Sanfranman59 goes around to all the county/state lists every week and updates them with new listings, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't validate every single county's total every week. I've always worked by the philosophy that if I find something that is undeniably wrong–such as the Monroe County situation–I just update the totals at the state list and the national list. If I turn out to be wrong or if someone questions the edit, they will no doubt send me a message (kind of like I sent that one to you). I was going to update the state/national list, but I'll hold off and let you do it.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Progress maps...

I could probably semi-automate the maps using ArcGIS, as it already is for the map showing counts for each county that I made. The easiest way would be to convert the county total charts into a csv, which would only need the county code and completion percentages. How are you creating it currently? 25or6to4 (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My current method is completely manual. I don't even use Inkscape or any other front end to edit the SVG file–just a text editor. The file is set up so that each county is given a class equal to "cXXXXX", where "XXXXX" is the county code. At the top of the file, you can add a style (like styles in CSS) to fill in the counties with the colors in the key. To get the data into the map, I manually read off the county code and percentages and add them to the style line. An example of how the state of New Hampshire is filled in is shown below.

/* *******************************************************************
                            NEW HAMPSHIRE
******************************************************************** */
/*Fully illustrated*/
      {fill: #A50026; }
/*90%-100%*/
      .c33011, .c33013 {fill: #D73027; } 
/*80%-90%*/
      .c33015, .c33001 {fill: #F46D43; } 
/*70%-80%*/
      {fill: #FDAE61; } 
/*60%-70%*/
      {fill: #FEE090; } 
/*50%-60%*/
      .c33007, .c33017 {fill: #FFFFBF; } 
/*40%-50%*/
      .c33009, .c33005 {fill: #E0F3F8; } 
/*30%-40%*/
      .c33019, .c33003 {fill: #ABD9E9; } 
/*20%-30%*/
      {fill: #74ADD1; } 
/*10%-20%*/
      {fill: #4575B4; } 
/*0%-10%*/
      {fill: #313695; } 

It's a pretty tedious task, but it isn't that bad actually. I like the relatively easy readability of the file in a text editor, and if we did automate the process, I wouldn't want to lose that. Let me know what you might be able to do, and we can discuss. I'm pretty limited with my programming skills, but I worked out a way using JavaScript to extract information from each county list that could be entered into the Progress page. I'm pretty sure I could do something similar that would trigger on the Progress page and give me a nice copy/paste-able output there that I could transfer to the SVG file. I'll look into that in a bit (unless you have a better idea), but for now I'm going to keep the same system. At least through the next update, which should come by the end of the weekend.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And just like that, I've just developed User:Dudemanfellabra/NRHPmap.js, which if you add to your vector.js will trigger when you visit the progress page and add copy/pasteable output that can be transferred directly to the SVG file. One more step towards full automation. Hells yea.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I just tried both of these out. They both work impressively. I tested out inserting part of Texas into my dummy copy and it produces correctly, except for one thing. Need one addition to the NRHPmap.js: It doesn't produce the color scale locations for Zero listings in a county (see e.g. Nebraska and Texas). Thought of something else. Maybe, instead of separating each county, the full list could be appended to the bottom of the list, so you can copy the entire list into the SVG in one fell swoop. edit: And now that I look over the svg again, I see the "No listing" section resting at the bottom of the SVG list, but I don't see where the script produces the updated list. 25or6to4 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I know it doesn't include the no listings color. There are several ways it can be improved, but if you notice the time stamp of my comment (and realize that I live in Alabama), it was already 3 AM when I finished messing with it last night haha, so I thought just outputting as much as it did was a pretty good achievement to hit the sack on...

Your idea of appending the full list of every single county to the bottom of the Progress page so that the code would output one large block would work, but that would kill load time for the page and it would also reduce the manual editability of the SVG file, something I don't want to happen. I had actually thought of making an array in the NRHPmap script including the name of all the states and then instead of outputting dispIllustrated and dispArticled after each table, I'd hold off and output one big block at the bottom of the page (or top, or wherever works) that included each of the smaller blocks separated by the commented out state names like are in the SVG file now. Then that whole block could be copied and pasted at once into the SVG file. I'll work on making it happen, but I'll be busy for the rest of today, so it will probably have to wait until some time this weekend. Thanks for helping out with Texas!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I found the time on my lunch break to update the code. Now at the end of the Progress page, the code adds a new "SVG Output" header and a section for Articled and Illustrated stats. It also handles when there are no listings in a county. It gives one giant block including all states that can be copied into the Illustrated SVG file and another giant block that can be copied into the Articled SVG file. I believe my work here is done! Muahahahaha! :D--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've copied the SVG output from the script to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress/SVG. Every time the maps is updated now, we can paste the script output into that page to get a diff of what has changed.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Small glitch in the stats script. It doesn't seem to be working for the NRHP St. Louis pages, any of the three. The rest of Missouri works fine. 25or6to4 (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Actually before it wouldn't work on any city page (i.e. a page in which the |nocity= parameter was in use in the {{NRHP header}} template). This is because the way I checked to see if it is an NRHP table and not some other table, such as the list of counties at the top of state lists, is to see if it has 6 columns. If nocity is used, the table only has 5 columns, and the code would skip that table. Now I fixed it to include all tables with 5 or more columns.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Chester County, PA

Nice work, but Chester County, PA is 97.5% illustrated! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops. That was a typo in the SVG file. Thanks for spotting it. It'll be fixed on the next update!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Feeling under the weather today - Virginia is the last full state, but I just can't total, adjust, and check the numbers. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

My script does that for you if you add in duplicates information :). If you don't feel like doing it, I'm sure I or someone else will get around to it pretty quickly. I'm currently adding in duplicates information for all the states, so I'll eventually get down there. Hope you feel better soon!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

edit conflict - no worries

just glad it's done! dm (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Tableizer Barnstar

		The NRHP Table-izer Barnstar
		I dusted off this Barnstar for you due to the inspired creation of the "Progress" table, summarizing the articles in every US county and their respective photographic status. Even more impressive was how you turned it into a map and came up with scripts to make the job easer. Excellent job all around for you and all the volunteers dm (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :)--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Compton and Bloomfield

A tag has been placed on Compton and Bloomfield, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page, or a redirect loop.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Camyoung54 talk 19:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

County list progress project and the "great new tool"

Hi Dude ... Thanks for your note on my talk page and also for the great work you've been doing for our favorite WP project. I'll add updating the Progress page to the list of tasks I do when adding new listings to the county/city tables. However, I can't seem to get your NRHPstats.js tool to work. I've added the importScript line to the bottom of my vector.js subpage and bypassed my browser cache as instructed in the note at the top of that page. But I'm not seeing the "magic" when I open the county tables (I've tried quite a few). I've also tried moving the line that calls your script to various positions on my vector.js subpage (I've got a few other things in there ... User:AndyZ\peerreviewer.js, User:MarkS/extraeditbuttons.js, User:Lupin/popups.js, User:Topbanana/RLRL_SR_Utility.js). No go. Any suggestions? --sanfranman59 (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at your vector.js, and it looks like it should be working. The script seems to be working fine for me, both on county lists and on the Progress page itself. Which browser are you using? I'm using Firefox, but I've also tested it in Safari and Opera. I don't have Internet Explorer since I'm on a Mac, but it should work there too. If you're using Internet Explorer, please try to see if everything works in a different browser. If you're not using Internet Explorer.... well then I have no clue haha.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I use Firefox. Since I'm at work, it's at least possible that I'm under some kind of security setting that won't allow your script to run (although I think the other scripts in my vector.js are working here ... the popups.js definitely is). I'll see if the story's the same on my home computer this evening. I'm not real clear about what I should be looking for. I assume it's not something too subtle that I might be missing? --sanfranman59 (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're on a county list, the script will add a bright yellow box (hard to miss) at the top of the listings table that will tell you how many listings there are, how many are illustrated, how many are articled, and the percentages for both of the latter. If you're on the Progress page, the script will display a similar yellow box atop each of the state tables. Additionally on the Progress page, it will turn table cells red if they don't match up with what the script thinks they should be (e.g. the percentage entered is not what you get when you divide, or the state total is not the sum of all the rows shown there). Since it isn't working and you're on Firefox, I may be able to help. If you know how to get to the Error Console (on my Mac I think the default hotkey is Cmd+Shift+J), open that after visiting a county list and see if any errors show up.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup ... getting one error:

Timestamp: 4/10/2013 4:55:57 PM

Error: NotFoundError: Node was not found

Source File: http://bits.wikimedia.org/en.wikipedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=user&only=scripts&skin=vector&user=Sanfranman59&version=20130410T204100Z&*

Line: 1

... and a gazillion warning messages --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Eureka! It looks like the problem was actually with the User:MarkS/extraeditbuttons.js script in my vector.js. I commented out all of those rows and, voila, there's the magic yellow box when I opened National Register of Historic Places listings in Dallas County, Alabama. Frankly, I'm not sure if I really care to run the extraeditbuttons script. I think I'll keep it commented out for a while and see if I miss anything. I wonder if anything else in my vector.js hasn't been running because of this? --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha, you caught me in an edit conflict. I was just going to ask you to remove everything from your vector.js and see if it worked on its own. Glad to know it works!

I'm actually working on an improved version of that script which can fetch the numbers in the yellow box without you actually having to visit the county list. It's still in the VERY early stages and I set it so that it only works in my user sandbox, but I've got it working for counties that have their own articles and counties which are sections on the state lists. I still have to make it be able to account for city lists and other sublists, but it's getting there. The end goal is for the Progress page to become fully automated, and I'm slowly approaching that point. If only I didn't have to worry about anything else haha.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(unindent)I love what you're doing. Keep up the good work! --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Maricopa County, Arizona

How's it going? Your removal of the "Santa Fe Section House" from the list is understandable, however try to be a little more careful in the future, not only did your actions remove the "Santa Fe Section House" addition, but you mistakenly removed four other photos which I went to the trouble of adding to the list. I know that it was unintentional, therefore no hard feelings on my behalf. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry I didn't check your diff when I undid the edit. If I had seen the new pictures, I would have only removed the row itself. My fault!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Historic District

A tag has been placed on Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Historic District, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page, or a redirect loop.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Camyoung54 talk 23:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Duplicates

First off, mine is the only photo in the Trail Ridge Road article (or its Commons category) with a clear location; I can't tell where any of the others are located, because none have sufficiently specific descriptions and none are geocoded. We'd basically need the photographers to contribute locations or to have help from someone who's really really familiar with the route. As far as the general principle, I'd say that it's best to develop some way of noting the non-duplication of the image; I'd be happy to do the work if necessary. It doesn't seem at all a good idea to say "Here's what this ___ County site looks like" when nothing of the image is in that county. That's why I've always photographed boundary-crossing sites either by getting different photos for each portion or by getting a photo that shows both portions; a single photo easily does the latter for bridges, so I've not attempted to get both sides for sites like the Harmony Way Bridge (its image on the White County IL list is taken from Indiana but shows the whole bridge), but I've gotten both a Center Township image and a non-Center Township image for the Indianapolis Park and Boulevard System, which is on two different lists. Nyttend (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I looked through Flickr for Trail Ridge Road images from west of the Continental Divide (it's the Grand/Larimer boundary) but found precisely nothing with WP-compatible licensing. Lots of roadside images east of the Divide, and several good roadside images west of the Divide with CC-BY-NC-ND licensing, but nothing useful both ways, unless you feel like using http://www.flickr.com/photos/sayamindu/7825734174, which seemingly is on the road at the county line. Nyttend (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That last picture looks fine to me. If you'd like to upload it, feel free. If not, I'll just figure out a way to tag these two sites as duplicates without images.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to add Valley Railway Historic District to your list of duplicates if it's not already there; it appears in three different lists, but until today, only one of them had an image. I've just added an image to a second list and will be adding a third one before long, so you don't need to worry about doing anything in mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

NRHPPROGRESS

No problem; I mostly wanted to see how Wyoming looked after finishing this list. The biggest issue I had with the script is that it took me three tries to actually run it all the way through. The first two times I tried to run it, the script hit a county that "failed to load" and aborted (I don't remember the exact wording). I don't know if that's an issue with my internet connection or the script, though. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea I get errors occasionally too, but for the life of me I can't find any way around them. They seem to happen randomly and normally aren't replicable. I've tested each section of the code thoroughly and independently, and everything that's there should work, but the only thing I can't control is the internet, so I have to assume every error is due to that. I've made the script abort itself if there is any error so that the Progress page isn't updated with erroneous material. It does (or should) give you a message describing the error, which is usually an XMLHttp failure for me. I wish I could handle errors more gracefully (and it's on the script's to do list), but as you no doubt have discovered, if you rerun the script immediately following the error, it seems to work fine.

Just curious.. how long did the script take to completely run? I had been seeing average run times of 1 hr 30 min with a max of about 2 hr 15 min and a minimum of 1 hr before the territory tables were added and the script was modified to check for dab links. After these modifications, the run time drastically decreased for me, so that now I get an average of about 45-55 min with a minimum of I think 37 min. What did you get? Or did you not pay attention?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't paying that close of attention to it, sorry. It was definitely less than an hour and a half, but I can't really be more specific. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Doncram

After seeing this comment by Doncram at WT:NRHP, I've filed an arbitration amendment request. I've mentioned you as a party simply because he was replying to you; you don't have to participate, but if you want to, please find the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what we can do to put any teeth into the previous Arbcom decision, since they refused the amendment request. Perhaps you could file an ANI, including noting his restoration of excessive quotations in various articles. Also, remember that I said I wouldn't restore anything without your consent, so given your comments, I'll only restore the .js if you ask for it — no need for you to have to write it all up again if we can ever get to the point where it's useful again. Nyttend (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm waiting for him to respond, and if he does the predictable WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT thing, I might file an ANI or AE or whatever else can be done. I've never done anything like that before (because I've never had trouble with anyone but him), so I would prefer not to have to. As for the script, I saved the code on my hard drive, so I still have it/can modify it locally, but when the time comes, I might ask you to restore the old revisions. Thanks.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please be civil in discussions

After reading through some of the comments related to Doncram I wanted to stop and ask you to please be civil in your comments. I realize not everyone appreciates his efforts or style of creating articles but referring to his work as trash is not acceptable. Additionally, since his articles are required to go through the AFC process, you are inferring insults at them as well. Kumioko (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Database software

Here at Indiana University Bloomington, I'm able to download Microsoft Office for free because of a licensing agreement the university's made with Microsoft, and while in undergrad I got multiple pieces of software (including Office) from their publishers at something like 10% of the normal price because I was a student. Have you checked to see whether UA has any programs of this sort? Nyttend (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually no I didn't think about that. I'm in the physics department, and we have access to software like Mathematica and MATLAB, but I didn't think to check out any kind of database software. Regardless, I think I've found a winner with NeoOffice (which would be free even if I wasn't a student). I've imported PROPMAIN and a few other files from dbf format to one compatible with that program, and I'm now able to query the database and do stuff with the results.... and it even has the option to output results in MediaWiki table format (thus the tables on WT:NRHP), so that's like a double bonus haha. My only task now is to learn a bit of SQL so I can do more advanced queries and make everything pretty haha. Thanks for the suggestion, though! :)--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Still, be sure to figure out what you can buy for cheap before you leave. Most of our free software download licenses require the software to be uninstalled upon departure, but our Office download license permits us to keep it after departing, and the same was true of the reduced-cost purchases in undergrad. You never know what you can find useful afterward. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

cleanup on MS NRHP articles?

Hi Dudemanfellabra -- I wonder if you would you collaborate in an editing campaign to improve the MS NRHP articles. MS is ripe for improvement because the NRHP nom docs are now online. Just starting to review some articles in the first county alphabetically, I come across:

• Beechland (Natchez, Mississippi), which was created in 2009 to settle a disambiguation page, to which i just added the now-available NRHP nom doc and a little bit more
• Brandon Hall (Washington, Mississippi), which has a couple sources identified but not the probably-available NRHP nom doc, and in which most text is not inline-sourced. Then, I notice the text is pretty much promotional in tone, and I find that it seems to be mostly a copy of copyrighted http://www.brandonhallplantation.com/history.aspx. It could be fixed up by editing to use the actual NRHP nom doc and to rely less on the website.

I'm sure there are similar opportunities for improvements in many other MS articles. I wonder if there are other MS editors that could be recruited. If you're not interested, that's fine, but I would be interested in participating in something positive if you are game. I'll watch here. --doncram 17:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

50,000 NRHP sites illustrated

		WikiProject National Register of Historic Places Award
		For helping WP:NRHP to illustrate 50,000 historic sites. And especially for your work at WP:NRHPPROGRESS so that we can keep track of our progress. Keep up the good work! Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats! You do incredible work. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal request

Hi Dudeman,

I'm hoping that you'll consider a personal request to update the NRHP progress tables and maps sometime before September 1, in time for the start of WLM 2013. I fully understand that there are difficulties and respect your choices on this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd also love to see the script back in action before WLM begins. I've just notified everyone at WT:NRHP that I've filed a bot request to tag all articles sourced only to the NRIS and I copied over the newly agreed upon class ratings to WP:NRHPA. Hopefully the new guidelines will do a lot to help scheme-proof the system and after seeing how it goes I can justify the return of the script.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

NRHP Bot request

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 4 Hasteur (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dudemanfellabra. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 20:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hasteur (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NRHPPROGRESS script question

I've just noticed a couple of Ohio articles that are identical to the Oak Ridge gatehouses that Orlady mentioned:

• Zaleski Mound Group in Vinton County: includes Markham Mound, Ranger Station Mound, Zaleski Methodist Church Mound
• Immaculate Conception Catholic Church (Botkins, Ohio) in Shelby County: includes Botkins Elementary School and Immaculate Conception Rectory at Botkins

I wasn't clear from your response to Orlady if you'd adjusted the code; do you want them to be reported to you somehow? Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The code should automatically adjust to these situations now. Looking at the NRHPstats output for those counties, nothing seems out of place. I unassessed the Zaleski article, and the Vinton County article showed 3 unassessed, so that tells me everything is working.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Another question. I decided to go through the Ohio listings and find the untagged articles at counties in which NRHPPROGRESS found untagged articles. One place in Fairfield County was an oddity: Talk:John Artz Farmhouse bore a Redirect-class tag, even though the article has never been a redirect. How does this get treated by the script? In the mean time, I marked it as a stub, so this specific article shouldn't cause future problems. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine the number of articles with this kind of situation is very small, but actually the script counts them as Start+ (i.e. "non-Stub"). This is technically incorrect, but it was easier to program than testing for Start, C, B, A, GA, and FA. I just check to see if an article is a stub, and if it isn't, I count it as Start+. When going through and checking assessments, I figure people will correct the Redirect/other-class articles to stub/start/etc., so I don't think I'll do anything with the coding there. If it turns out to be a big enough problem, though, I'll look into fixing it. Thanks for pointing that out either way.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I've just added project tags to 150+ articles, and to do that I had to view tons of others (several hundred in the Cincinnati area alone), but in the whole state I found just two talk pages with inappropriate redirect-class tags. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What was the other one? I noticed with the Artz article that it was created by the NRHPbot way back in 2007.. maybe if the second one you found was also created by that bot it would be productive to go through all of its contributions from back then?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Artz House, one county away from the John Artz house. I've just now gone through Category:Redirect-Class National Register of Historic Places articles to check everything beginning with A, B, and numbers; I found Abbott-Page House, Adams County Paleo-Indian District, Arkansas Valley Lodge No. 21, Prince Hall Masons, Arrowston, and Bush Hill Historic District. Bush Hill was changed back and forth between redirect and freestanding article, and the lodge had about one day at a different title — of course it got tagged during that time, although the alternate talk page is correctly tagged as a redirect. The other three articles were NRHPbot creations; apparently I missed them while going through their county lists. It created all Ohio articles beginning with numbers and with "A", a few beginning with "B", and all sites in Hamilton and Butler counties; I went through all of the Hamilton and Butler articles already, and by that time I was looking for bad redirect tags, so at worst there are very few that I missed. Might I suggest that you tell it to count "redirect" tags as unassessed? If I understand rightly, the only way the script will count a talk page as "redirect" is if we have a double redirect in a list or if an article's talk page is mistagged. Perhaps you could do the same with "list" tags; this is the result you'll get for the Bethune-Cookman College Historic District in Volusia County FL, because it's inappropriately a redirect to Daytona Beach Multiple Property Submission. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I second doing the same thing to list tags, if only to catch the articles that are redirected to the county lists themselves. Yes, these redirects exist, and they're annoyingly hard to find as it is; I only know this happens because I caught Liberty Hall (Oakland, California) while manually looking through the Alameda County list. (If there's a legitimate reason for article titles to redirect to other lists, I'll reconsider, but I don't know of one; even multiple resource areas and groups of sites aren't supposed to just be lists.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, what I think I will do is change it so that the script counts talk pages with redirect tags as unassessed. The script currently resolves any redirects on a county list to point to the actual location of the article text and then queries the already resolved talk page (e.g. if ListLink is a redirect that points to TextLocation, the script figures that out first and then queries Talk:TextLocation rather than Talk:ListLink). In fact, it even tries to resolve any already resolved talk pages (e.g. if Talk:TextLocation was for whatever reason in turn a redirect to Talk:ACTUALTextLocation) to give it two levels of protection. Basically all that is to say the script shouldn't ever see any redirect tags unless they're there in error.

As far as list tags, I'll have to look into that a bit more before I figure out what to do there. Personally I think that if you find a link on a county list which is a redirect to another list such as the MPS one, the redirect should just be deleted, provided there is no more content on the MPS list than there is in the county list. I'd like to spend a little more time looking for lists just in case there is some legitimate reason a target article should be assessed list-class. I'll make the redirect thing work before the night's up. Thanks again for pointing this out!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you. I was guessing that the script didn't care about Talk:ListLink; for that reason, I allowed the Washington County OH list to continue linking to First Unitarian Church Of Marietta (an untagged talk page), because that's a redirect to First Unitarian Church of Marietta, which has a normally tagged talk page. I can only once remember seeing a situation in which I'd support the individual listings being redirects to an MPS list: the Round Barns in the Black Swamp of Northwestern Ohio MPS. Most of the barns are address-restricted (but locations are easily found), and when I requested a nomination from NPS, I was sent the MPS form instead of a specific nomination or an Ohio Historic Inventory form. Perhaps the latter forms exist (but I don't have time to visit the smalltown libraries in the region to see the forms), but except for them, I don't know of any extant sourcing on individual barns, as they're too new for the relevant county history books, and my normal source (a two-volume set dedicated to the NR in Ohio) mentions only the one that gets substantial coverage by itself in the MPS. All that being said My goal is eventually to have a proper article on the MPS instead of a bare list like the thing in Florida; it would basically be a broad "Here are some related topics" articles, similar to what I've done with articles such as the Botkins and Zaleski articles at the top of this section. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

AE discussion

Your name is mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Doncram. You may or may not wish to comment.

PS - I just saw your photo on your user page. Good-looking dude! --Orlady (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I for one appreciate the work you do at NRHP. I have left the ratings to others, BUT I admire your drive to see articles become better and people actually learn things.. Coal town guy (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No apology necessary

Regarding your recent comment [1] regarding the NRHP Progress business: There's no need whatsoever to apologize. You've put in a lot of time and hard work creating a splendid tool for the project. It's certainly spurred me to lots of extra effort in my particular corner of the vineyard. I don't think you could have done anything to avert the recent flap, apart from completely giving up on any kind of quality-article-counting scheme. Thanks for your past and continuing efforts on the Progress page. Ammodramus (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet another script

Thanks so much for the auto-renumbering script! See my comment about osmosis :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Haha yea I've seen people complain about renumbering rows all the time, and I've hated the task myself sometimes. When I saw that section at WT:NRHP, I was (and still am) actively trying to avoid doing some homework haha, so this is what came out of it. I still need to get around to working out the Progress code, but that will take a much longer time than this little script did.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You, sir, are a rock stah! :) I've used Microsoft Excel to aid me in renumbering for some time, so for me it's not hideous to do. But it is a bit annoying. But now having to just press a button, huzzah! I am also a charter member of the Procrastinator's Club, so I completely understand doing stuff to put off doing other stuff. If you do it right, you can make people think you're actually productive. Again, thanks, cheers and have a great weekend! :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 16:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: In checking to see when you added the script to your user page, I came across this edit, where you removed commented out rows to allow the script to correctly renumber the visible ones. I didn't see if you did this to any other lists, but that should no longer be necessary. I've just modified the script to skip any commented out rows, as I seem to remember this being a common practice. If in the future you come across any behavior with this script (or any of my others) besides "it just works", please let me know, and I'll try to fix it. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Schuylkill Navy Page

Hi! I saw that you edited the University Barge Club page! How did you get to be involved? Would you want to do more? I'm editing the Schuylkill Navy page for a class project for Cornell University, and would love some added input! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyp25 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Undelete User:Dudemanfellabra/UpdateNRHPProgress.js

If any admins watch this page, could one of you undelete the script User:Dudemanfellabra/UpdateNRHPProgress.js? I'd like access to the old revisions. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A bug in the NRHPStats script

Something in the table at National Register of Historic Places listings in South Side Chicago is causing the NRHPStats script to give the number of start-class articles (and the percentage of start-class articles and quality rating) as 'NaN'. I don't think it's displaying untagged articles either, since there should be two there according to NRHPPROGRESS. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been running the script for about 2 hours now haha. I wish this would have been pointed out earlier. The progress page was just updated with a bunch of NaN's, so I'm reverting that now. I won't have time to find the bug tonight, but I'll look into it soon. Sorry for that.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I found a little time while my colleagues were taking a break from work tonight and think I have fixed it. I don't have enough time to rerun the Progress script tonight, but South Side Chicago works for me now. How about on your end? The problem came in with my fix yesterday for the Guam bug.. Since a redirect came at the end of the Chicago list, my logic for fixing Guam screwed everything up there. I fixed the code to handle those cases, though, and every other list should be fine. Let me know if you find anything else. If you feel so inclined, feel free to run the Progress script yourself, although I will find some time to do it tomorrow if you or someone else doesn't do it tonight. Thanks again for being my bug-catcher! Haha.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

South Side Chicago looks fine to me. Thanks for fixing the bug! TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Template editor userright

As announced here, the RFC on a "template editor" userright (and associated guidelines for the userright) was successful, and its goals have been implemented into our software: the userright is now active. I'm sick of seeing you make requests for template updates, so I'm granting you the right. Thanks so much for all of your work! If for some reason you don't want it, you can always ask for its removal; it's like rollback in that you can always have it removed and restored at your request. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually had the page on my watchlist to be alerted when it went live so that I could request this permission, so that's awesome haha. Saved me the trouble of having to ask. Thanks! I haven't actually edited templates in a while, but I'm sure this will come in handy if when I go back to doing that. I guess now I might also pay a little more attention to Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. I've looked at that list several times before and known I could help at least a handful of the people there but had no power to do so. Now that I might be able to help, I'll probably spend a little more time there. Thanks again!

P.S. I don't know if you'll be interested, but I've been working on something lately... ;).--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd seen that in your contributions, which I checked a couple of times to see if you'd made any template edits yet :-) Did you notice that the Ds are duplicated? Each D-named place is listed twice. Meanwhile, as you may have seen, at the moment you have essentially no more template-editing abilities than you did before: basically, we have a new level of protection, and you're able to edit pages with that protection level, but virtually no pages are currently at that protection level. However, all you'll have to do is request a change from "fully protected" to "template-editor-protected" when you're ready to edit a protected template. Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

About the template stuff, I realize it's limited now, but as the right is used more and more, I expect to see many templates dropped down from full protection to this new level. And like you said, I could just make one request to drop a template down that far and be done with it. I'm happy either way :).

As for the NRIS-only stuff, yes I realized the D's were duplicated (and also the H's, L's, and Q's) and fixed that about an hour before you commented with this automated edit. I'm not sure why there were duplicates since there are no duplicates here (which, along with its siblings, could be a useful list itself), but I included a routine in my code that explicitly removes duplicates if they are found, which took care of it. I plan on checking through all of the output to see if there are any false positives, but a quick spot-check of like 20-30 articles looks like it's mostly correct. After I've had my initial run-through, I'll bring this up at the project talk page, get more people to look over the results/suggest modifications, and then probably have to create/get approval for a bot account to tag the articles. All the automated editing I've been doing to create these lists I'm pretty sure doesn't matter since it's all in my userspace, but editing actual articles would be against some rule somewhere I'm sure.

TLDR: I'm making progress, and in a few more days might hopefully be able to start tagging articles!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The approval requirement for bots doesn't apply when bots edit their own userspace or that of their operators; that's a major reason that User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages remains in userspace, since West.andrew.g doesn't need to worry about approval requests as long as it's there. Meanwhile, note that I've begun working at WT:RFPP to include a "downgrade to template-editor" option. Nyttend (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

NRIS-only pages

Wow, thanks for taking on the NRIS-only articles project! I'm continually impressed by your ability to write useful scripts for NRHP stuff. I should have some time over the next couple of days to take a look at the output (which I can happily help with, since I also want to track the NRIS-only articles). I suspect you've noticed this already, but there are several letters missing from the output list; I highly doubt that there are no NRIS-only articles starting with D or R, for instance. Aside from that, the handful of articles I've spot-checked look fine so far, but there are some other things I want to check (including one test case that unfortunately starts with R). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have realized that, and it's troubled me, specifically because Ridge Trail Historic District (which I brought up in the original bot discussion) should be tagged and it's not on my output list. I've just updated the code to hopefully work better, and I'll run it through now. I actually found some false positives earlier which had line breaks inside the refs, so I fixed that too. Slowly ironing out the kinks...--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ridge Trail Historic District was my aforementioned test case starting with "R", mainly because it's the only page I know of with a commented-out second reference (though I'm sure there are others, since a certain editor did that a lot). Hopefully it's just an issue with skipping letters, though. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

After a little more tinkering, I realized the way I was counting references (which was for the most part stolen from User:Hasteur's old code) was off. The old code counted multiple citations to the same sources (i.e. <ref name=nris/>) as "more than one reference", so I modified the script to more carefully count the number of refs and got a much better output. The current revision of the page includes all 26 letters and has a link to Ridge Trail Historic District (though it is missing a few numbers.. but that's a little more easily believable since there are fewer total articles which start with numbers). That said, I'm still not convinced that this would have affected every single article that started with R, so I'm not entirely sure what was going wrong before haha.

Spot checking again looks good, but finding false positives is the easier of our tasks. Omissions are going to be the hardest thing to find. Hopefully before the end of weekend I'll have had enough time to convince myself this run was as correct as possible and bring it up at the project talk page. If you don't get time to look at anything before then, don't worry. Even assuming everything is 100% correct, I'm sure it will take some time to get any kind of bot approval. No rush in any case. Thanks again for the willingness to help!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

More as a reference than a "blame page" (I plan to eventually make some use out of this by sorting by timestamp to determine if any new editors are mass-adding NRIS-only stubs), I generated this list, which shows all users who have created more than one NRIS-only stub. Not to point fingers, but someone involved in this conversation is on that list.... ;P Haha nah just messing with you. I was quite shocked at just how many the top two had created, though. That's insane!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, back in 2009 when I first started editing NRHP articles, I created a number of NRIS-only stubs before I realized that was a bad idea. I dealt with most of them earlier this year, but I must have missed a couple. (And now I'm curious as to what those are... I don't suppose your code can figure that out, can it?) That #1 figure is really something, though - I think that's more than the rest of the list combined. Based on my experience with expanding these, there aren't a whole lot of surprises at the top of that list; #2 actually seems a bit low given how high his article count is, but a lot of those were disambiguation pages, got expanded, or had a second reference (not necessarily a good one), so I suppose that's reasonable. Other than that, most of them either haven't written articles lately or have a large body of work that cites other sources, so hopefully the overall number can stay stable for a while. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 09:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the two articles are Copperopolis Armory and Vorous General Store. As for Doncram, many of his later contributions did have at least a citation to the nomination form, so those articles wouldn't be counted as NRIS-only. I'm pretty sure he also made an effort to revisit old articles he had created to add links to nom forms, but I didn't follow what he was doing closely enough to tell.

This output with the list of all the articles is going to be overwritten shortly (but will remain in the history of the page if you're ever interested), and I'm going to try to include a list of all NRIS-only articles created in the past month (which is hopefully zero), along with the people who created them. The table with totals will stay, just not the list of each person's articles.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The first one should have had a reference to the nomination form the whole time, but apparently I forgot to put it in the article. (I'm not sure how I remembered to link the photos from the nomination form but forgot to cite the nomination form itself.) I'll expand the second one at some point. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No rush. Also FYI I updated the NRISOnlyCreators page and by the script's count there have been 4 total NRIS-only articles created in the past 30 days by 2 different editors. Seems everything's working. I'm currently looking for false positives on the NRISOnly page. I've looked at every single one of the first 60 articles and haven't gotten one yet. I plan to look at all the A's and if I can't find a false positive by the end, bring it up at the project page.--Dudemanfellabra (talk)

Well, I just noticed one shortcoming to the system. I was wondering why this article wasn't in with the recently-created NRIS-only articles until I noticed that it didn't actually use Template:NRISref. I suppose there's nothing we can do about that, though; these types of articles (and the handful that are only cited to post-2010 new listing pages) will just have to be tagged manually, I guess. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, if there is no {{NRISref}} template on the page, my script won't find it. That said, though, maybe we should see about getting that bot that went through to transclude NRISref everywhere to run again in case new links like this have been added. Something I find curious about this Hotel Faust case is that the non-standard reference seems to have been added by a bot which took it from the National Register of Historic Places article itself. Sure enough, I checked on the NRHP article, and the "nris" ref was not using the NRISref template. Hopefully now that that's fixed, it won't happen again. I would be curious to know how that bot works and how many other pages it's added that incorrect citation to. I would also be curious to know why the main freaking NRHP article wasn't formatted correctly. That's kind of glaring error, don't you think? Haha.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

First, the bot looks through all past revisions of an article looking for one matching the orphaned name. If that fails, it checks pages linked from edit summaries, in the hope that the editor who copied the ref from some other article actually mentioned it when they did so. If that fails too, then it looks at pages linked from the current page and pages linking to the current page, on the theory that someone probably copied the orphaned ref from a "related" article and that there are probably wikilinks between related articles. This last is how it found the ref for that Hotel Faust article.

Checking the bot's logs, that is the only article it copied a ref named "nris" to since September 1, 2013. Anomie⚔ 20:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Anomie: I didn't realize you watched this page; awesome! If I may ask, how long has the bot been in operation? September 1 is pretty recent, and I'm worried that something similar may have happened before then. Would it be possible for you to link to logs somewhere so that I could look through them? Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Nyttend (talk · contribs) asked me to comment here. The bot has been running since 2008, but I don't save logs farther back than "last month". The raw logs are not available online, although the bot does post similar logs to User:AnomieBOT/OrphanReferenceFixer log. Actually, now that I check, I see that the logs on the server seems to have missed some edits, including this one that you probably can't see. Hmm. Anomie⚔ 23:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that useful tool, I'll go back and improve the 18 (!) to my name. Argh. Acroterion (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

not sure if you saw this reply

just in case this reply is regarding false positives when I meant to say false negative. Sorry! dm (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. You're correct I glanced over it. That makes much more sense!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

NRHP Talk

Yes it was and I apologize. musta been sleep editing again. Gtwfan52 (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Dating for Template:NRIS-only

I see you recently created {{NRIS-only}} with a |date= parameter, but you don't seem to have set up the categories and such so that the template is automatically dated by bots and so the dated categories are also automatically created. The instructions on doing so are at Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category, feel free to ask if you have any questions. Anomie⚔ 00:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I just filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NRHPbot about an hour before this comment. The template will be added by bot to about 10,000 pages (listed here) and have the date parameter/categories automatically created. I'm still in the process of writing the code, and there have been several major hiccups in the process at WT:NRHP, so that's why it's been sitting there so long without any activity. Everything should be set up pretty soon, but thanks for pointing that out!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

See my comment at the approval page regarding confusion with another username. After I left it, I checked and found that User:NRHPbot hasn't been registered; did you make a typo in the username? Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You're correct I haven't created the user page yet or registered an account with that user name. I made a point not to since the old bot had a very similar name. I figured someone would say something about it and suggest a better name. You've done the first part, so..... :P--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Dudemanbot?  :-þ Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

How about ProgressBot?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

But if you tied it to your own username, it would make a lot more sense if you ever requested approval for an unrelated task. For example, imagine "Progressbot" being used to add {{National Register of Historic Places}} to the many articles from which it's missing. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

...And now you see why I suggested NRHPBot haha. I don't really want to tie it to my user name because it may be that later on I transfer "ownership" or whatever to someone else. I mean it is written in Javascript, so it's not like I'm the only one who can use it. In order for the bot to be approved, I'll have to change it so that it only operates if the username is whatever we choose it to be, but still.. There's no reason I can't in the future hand the bot off to someone else by securely emailing them the bot's password. Essentially I want this to be more attached to WP:NRHP than to me.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Transferring a bot is so rare that I never considered the issue. I'm pretty sure that it is, but you might as well check with the BAG to make sure that a transfer is included in the "approved bots with multiple managers" exception to WP:ROLE. Seeing that "NRHP" isn't used very much by the NPS and that they tend to use "NR" or "National Register", what if you tried "User:NRBot"? Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

NRHPStats doesn't seem to be working in articles

For some reason, NRHPStats stopped displaying the stats for list-articles sometime last night. It's still working for NRHPPROGRESS, so I'm pretty sure I didn't accidentally turn it off. Any idea what's going on here? TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. I tried a late night fix to the whole "page does not exist" showing up in other languages problem and got my programming languages mixed up. Everything seems to be working now. Also, I think on the next NRIS-only run the original problem should be fixed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for fixing it! TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you be able to add an extra function to the script? I note that it provides numbers for untagged and tagged-but-not-rated articles, but finding these articles manually requires a time-consuming search through all blue links. Could you have the script spit out a list of untagged articles and perhaps the unrated ones as well? I'm imagining it dumping the list on a different page, since listing individual pages isn't the point of the WP:NRHPPROGRESS main page. Nyttend (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Unless you're referring to one of the other scripts, I believe NRHPStats already does this on the individual lists. For instance, I'm looking at National Register of Historic Places listings in Pasadena, California right now, and the script is telling me which article is unassessed. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Scroll over the words "Unassessed" or "Untagged", and the tooltip will tell you the offending articles.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dudemanfellabra. You have new messages at The Cosmos Master's talk page.
Message added 19:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Cosmos Master (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Progress page

Due to a combination of issues, I'll easily be able to run an update of NRHPPROGRESS in a couple of hours, so please don't worry about doing it this week. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yea sure, feel free! Being preoccupied with this NRIS-only stuff, I planned on just waiting until the end of the tagging to update everything with the new stats (i.e. probably skipping this week), so if it's updated and I don't have to fool with it, all the better for me! Haha by next week I should have the NRIS-only stats added to it. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! Would you mind updating the maps? Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that in a few hours. I'm running the bot at the moment... hoping top finish the initial run up now.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I forgot that it only cares about things in ref tags. I've converted the thing at the courthouse into a standard reference, while I don't expect to do anything immediately with the Piatt Castles. Meanwhile, a bigger question: Bedford, Virginia stopped being an independent city and became part of Bedford County, Virginia last summer. This means that it shouldn't have its own list (city and county put together had only about 30 sites; it's not a case of necessary splitting for size reasons), so I've merged them just now. What do I need to do at NRHPPROGRESS, since the bot's no longer going to be seeing any results for one of its lists? Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I just took care of it. All that needed to be done was to combine the two rows' data into one row and remove the link to the city of Bedford so the script doesn't hit an error because it can't find a list. Thanks for pointing this out!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, by the looks of this edit, you may not know about User:Dudemanfellabra/ReorderNRHPlist.js. If you install that script on your vector.js just like you have the Progress script, a button will show up at the beginning of any NRHP list which allows you to automatically re-number the rows after you've added/removed some listings. For example, in this edit you could have simply copied over the listings from the city of Bedford in one edit, saved the page, then clicked on the "Renumber list" button that would show up at the top of the page. The script would automatically edit the page a second time to correct the numbering. See for example this diff.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Curious about the maps: do you update those with a script, or do you do them manually? I've been spending a bunch of my Thanksgiving week expanding stubs, including an NHL, and I'm curious to see what other people have been doing so far over this week. Meanwhile, it might help if we had an additional method of tracking NRIS-only; could you set up the bot to create a list (presumably in your userspace or in projectspace) of all NRIS-only articles? I'd like to be able to find ones in Ohio, but since it's a waste of time to go through the national tagged-in-November category looking only for Ohio items, it would be nice if the bot could create a list with three columns: site name, state name, and county name. Of course, I'm well aware that this would probably take a lot of additional work on your part; please don't make it a priority unless you feel like doing it, and please don't let this request make it seem as if I think your work is easy. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For the maps, basically, you run the main script to update the tables, another to update a page with SVG code for the maps, and then use that to re-upload the images. Chris857 (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Chris is right about the maps.. The progress script updates all the data, then another script outputs the SVG data to a page where I copy it into the actual image file to update it. I've thought about making the script do all this at once, but I haven't had time to look into how to upload images via script. Maybe after I get out for Christmas break I'll have some off time to look into it.

As far as the NRIS-only stuff, Would it suffice to update the NRHPstats script to output NRIS-only titles in a tooltip like it already does for untagged/unassessed articles? I could make a list of all NRIS-only articles, but sorting by county/state would take a bit of work... besides, the Progress page itself kind of gives you this level of sorting already.. if not by name then by number. If I added the NRIS-only tooltip to NRHPstats, then all you'd have to do to find any NRIS-only article in a given county is click on that county's link from the Progress page. Even if that won't suffice for your purposes, I'll still try to add it in because I think it's a good idea haha. Let me know if you want anything more. I'll try to update the Progress page by the end of the week. Sorry for being delayed, but Thanksgiving is getting in the way, as well as the end of the semester hysteria that is submitting my students' grades and finishing up my own finals as well. After Christmas break starts, things will hopefully be updated much more regularly.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Just online for the first time since Wednesday morning; no complaints about Thanksgiving getting in your way :-) I'm not fond of relying on the Javascript stuff, partly because it requires a different browser and partly because it requires a different skin; perhaps you remember what I told you by email some time back, saying that I had to use Firefox and vector to run them. If it's too much work to produce the list, I'll fully understand and won't complain. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm just online since Thanksgiving as well haha. I'll run the Progress script overnight, so, assuming no errors, the page will have been updated by the time I wake up, at which time I will update the maps. I'd like to point out that the NRHPstats script should work in any browser and on any skin since it is much less complicated than the Progress script. It doesn't edit any pages or load anything in the background.. just adds a little yellow box to a page based on what's there already. If you want to be able to use it in any skin, add it to User:Nyttend/common.js rather than your vector.js. If you really want to avoid the scripts at all cost, though, I'll see what I can do. No promises on timespan though haha.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if Nyttend doesn't end up using the script, I've been hoping for an NRIS-only tooltip so I can address the NRIS-only articles on a state-by-state basis, in case you're looking for a reason to add it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I previously tried it in monobook.js, not the common.js; perhaps that will help, so thanks. I'm primarily here, however, to ask about the quality algorithm and also to request a slight modification. Imagine two pages with NRIS-only: one is tagged as a stub at the talk page, and the other doesn't even have a talk page yet. Are they ranked the same for NRHPPROGRESS, or if not, what's the difference? Meanwhile, would there be a way to have the algorithm rank pages that have absolutely no sources at all? I've been spending a big chunk of time going through a pile of substubs created by User:Candleabracadabra, who didn't even add infoboxes (see original edition of one article) or any sources whatsoever, and if I understand the algorithm rightly, these pages will actually drop in quality by going from unsourced to NRIS-only. No hurry on responding; I promise that I won't cheer for Auburn to do well enough to make you leave early and work on this :-) Nyttend (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The algorithm used for net quality is as follows:

netQuality = 0.75*articlequality+0.25*imagequality

where

articlequality = (startorhigher+0.5*stubs-0.25*unassessed-0.5*untagged-0.75*NRISonly)/listings
imagequality = images/listings

So for all combinations:

• NRIS-only article which is untagged: -1.25*0.75=-93.75% (the lowest possible score for an article) if it is unillustrated, -1.25*0.75+1*0.25=-68.75% if it is illustrated
• NRIS-only and tagged, but unassessed: -75.00%/-50.0% if it is unillustrated/illustrated.
• NRIS-only and rated stub: -18.75%/+6.25%
• NRIS-only and rated Start+ (I've seen some long ones...): +18.75%/+43.75%

As far as completely unsourced stubs, there is no current mechanism for adding them into the rating scheme (so you are correct that they are thus assessed as "higher quality" than NRIS-only stubs). The bot does output them to the same page the NRIS-only articles to be tagged/untagged are placed, so I could easily write some code to tag them with {{unreferenced}} or maybe some NRHP-specific variant of that tag, which I could then check for in the Progress script and modify the above formula. That would require project consensus, though, as well as another request for approval for the second task.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Also @TheCatalyst31: The NRHPstats script should now output a tooltip for NRIS-only articles exactly like it does for unassessed/untagged. I also suppressed the output if it is zero to avoid clutter.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

[ec] Since there's no current mechanism, let me ask that you not make one; it's too much work for something that's comparatively uncommon and rather easy to fix, since we can always add an NRIS-based infobox to such an article. Since some citation variants aren't easily found by automated processes, I was counting on a decent number of errors in such a rating that would be inappropriate if we were actually tagging articles. After all, {{unreferenced}} means that there aren't any citations in any formats; a bot would presumably miss MLA-style citations with inline parenthetical references and a bibliography. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The NRIS-only tooltip seems to be working; thanks for adding it! TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A slight issue with NationalRegisterBot

When NationalRegisterBot removes the NRIS-only tag from a page using Template:Multiple issues which only had two maintenance tags, it still leaves in Template:Multiple Issues, even though the page no longer has multiple issues. See this diff, for instance. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw that too. I'm working on getting logic to fix that. In the bot approval talk, there was some mention of adding a multiple issues template when there were more than some number of templates on a page being tagged, but I decided to put that off (most of the articles that were just tagged were short/obscure enough not to have multiple tags). The issue of removing a tag causing multiple issues to no longer be needed was not brought up though. I guess my thinking was that if it was needed before tagging, it would still be needed after untagging, but I didn't take into account the fact that the bot replaces some tags. This issue is easier to fix that adding multiple issues when needed, so hopefully I'll get it taken care of pretty quickly. Thanks for pointing it out nonetheless!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, User:TheCatalyst31, I can't remember if I ever followed up with this, but I added the functionality to the bot to remove the multiple issues tag if only one issue is remaining upon detagging. I haven't encountered that situation again, but I plan on running the bot again shortly as soon as I can find some time to do it. Maybe I'll encounter it then. Either way, the code was tested externally and should work without problems.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

De Borgia Schoolhouse

Thanks for the correction on De Borgia Schoolhouse. Coupled with poor memory, sometimes my assumptions get the best of me. Ltvine | Talk 20:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for adding more material to the article along with a second inline citation. The bot that placed the {{NRIS-only}} tag on it is operated by me and is connected with WP:NRHP. We are making a point to clean up the ~10K articles that rely solely on the NRIS data, and by expanding that article, you've helped! Feel free to clean up more articles sourced only to the NRIS by examining Category:Articles sourced only to NRIS. Thanks again!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Another bug in the stats script

On this revision of National Register of Historic Places listings in Polk County, Georgia, the script is reporting a negative number of start-class articles. I inadvertently fixed the problem by repairing a link to an untagged disambiguation page, so I suspect that has something to do with the issue. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You're a programmer's best friend. You always find the fringe cases that would probably go years without being detected, and you have great insight to the root of the problem. The bug should be fixed now. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit of programming myself (mostly in Python), so I do have experience in debugging. I think I've just been getting lucky in finding fringe cases, though it probably helps that I've been working on a lot of different lists lately. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The script is still having issues with negative counts; see this revision. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, I'll get this right sooner or later. Bug now fixed.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

NRIS-only but overlooked by the bot

FYI on one more nicety to deal with at some point... I manually tagged Monday House as NRIS-only because it is sourced only to nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com. I'm guessing that the 'bot isn't tagging those, or else that the format of the citation confused the bot. --Orlady (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC) That's not an isolated case; subsequently I found and tagged Captain James Newman House. --Orlady (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The bot only tags articles sourced to NRIS via {{NRISref}}. Since these articles do not use this template, they aren't tagged by the bot. In fact, these articles are counted as being completely unreferenced since the "reference" in each is really an external link. The bot outputs a list of articles with no references to the same place it outputs articles to be tagged/untagged, and checking the list, both of these show up as expected. There is also a list of articles with only one reference that is not NRIS. Theoretically, people should go through these two lists to find articles that should be manually tagged as you have done.. or just change the citations to be actual inline citations to the NRIS. I'm pretty sure when the bot is run again, both of these articles will be untagged.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

article quality score

I just put this on WP:NRHP since it is so straightforward. Ok, it's pretty simple to translate what I have above to a formula. To keep it even simpler, I'll just consider your "article quality score" (not dividing by listings). The only variable I add is the number of blue links (articles) = A

your articlequality = (startorhigher+0.5*stubs-0.25*unassessed-0.5*untagged-0.75*NRISonly)

my articlequality =(0.6*A +0.4*startorhigher - 0.2*untagged - 0.3*NRISonly)

which has the nice property that whenever you do something good to the article, the score doesn't go down. Give me a list of what taking a good action should add, and we can make an equation for it. Since it is just changing one equation it should be pretty easy to change. I have only a foggy idea whether this will raise or lower the average scores - probably on average a little higher since it can't go negative.

Hope this helps Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I've replied on the project talk page; let's try to keep discussion there so others can join in if they wish.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

File:NRHP nominations upload status.svg

Hey, I would handle this myself, but SVGs are out of my (very limited) depth technologically. The second stripe in Oregon should be changed from yellow ("Some nominations online at state-level or other source") to bright green ("Almost all nominations online at state-level or other source"). The database at http://heritagedata.prd.state.or.us/historic/ provides links to Oregon nomination forms almost universally, except AR sites have been systematically omitted. Thanks. — Ipoellet (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That is to say Oregon should have the same patterning as Washington, Mississippi, and West Virginia. — Ipoellet (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just updated the map. If you don't mind, could you update WP:NRHPHELP#Oregon with some better worded/more up to date text about this database. I'm not sure who added what's there in the first place, but it seems it was under construction then.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Will do, though it may take me a day or two. Thanks much. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Another question on the updatescript

You may remember that I had to get a new computer recently; since I'm running IE10 now, I decided to try the updatescript with it. After adding the "import" bit to User:Nyttend/monobook.js, I tried to run the script; the box appeared properly at the top of the page, but I got an error message:

Error: Unable to get property 'parentNode' of undefined or null reference
Script aborted!

This appeared before it even scrolled down to Autauga County, Alabama. Since the import bit was still in my vector.js, I switched skins and tried to run it, but it's stalled with the following text:

Fetching wikitext... Wikitext fetched.
Validating county data... 0 (0%) of 3493 lists checked.
Estimated time remaining: Calculating...

We've scrolled down to Autauga County now, but it can't go farther. I'm about to try switching to whatever version of Firefox came preinstalled on this machine. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Now running the script in Firefox, and it's running fine so far. Perhaps you've said this before, but have you tried running the script in any version of IE? Or have you heard from anyone who successfully ran it in IE? Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) On my WinXP machine, Chrome seems to silently fail and IE8 gives me an error popup, both before really doing anything. Firefox on linux has worked for me (but that isn't at home). Chris857 (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've also had issues with Chrome silently failing with the script (and occasionally taking up boatloads of memory to do so); I'm running Windows 7 FWIW. I haven't tried Firefox yet, though. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that Nyttend was successful in running the script using Firefox, which is my default browser on all my computers and so is the only one in which I've tested it extensively. I don't have access to IE since my machines are Macs, but I do have Chrome, and I'll see if I can figure out why the script would fail in these other browsers. Kind of pressed for time at the moment, but I'll lay out some thoughts here that I'll check later.

• My guess for your monobook woes is the code looks for the div with id="mw-page-base", which may be a vector-only thing. Another possible culprit, though less likely since you said the box displays fine, is the div id="mw-content-text". If these are not present in monobook, the code will break. I'll check and see if they are named differently in different skins and fix that in the code if that is indeed the case. If these are both skin-independent, though, I'm not sure why you're getting a parentNode error. Can anyone replicate that?
• As for the script failing even in vector on IE, could you do something for me, User:Nyttend? Run the script again until it fails and press F12 to open your Developer Tools. Then go to the console tab and copy/paste any errors you see for me. Knowing the exact error will help to pin down the problem as I hopefully did above.
• As for Chrome, I get weird behavior sometimes when I run the script there where the Progress div (i.e. the box that tells you what the script is doing) does not update but the script actually runs fine anyway. Are you sure this is not what is happening? I've gotten errors in Chrome before (I've run it there a few times), but nothing out of the ordinary, i.e. different than in Firefox. If anyone runs into an error anywhere, could you please do what I suggested for Nyttend in the bullet above and copy/paste any errors from the console for me? F12 works in Chrome as well to bring up Developer Tools.

Thanks, guys, and sorry for the errors. My code could use some optimizing as it is basically a sloppy patchwork job of the older scripts I made before this big one, but since it's worked for me, I haven't put any effort into making it cleaner. Hopefully we can all work together and make it universally compatible and maybe even faster/less resource-needy.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem; I know that grad school made me want to do everything else in patchwork mode :-) I'm not 100% sure that it's not running (i.e. I think that the non-moving Progress div here reflects its lack of progress, but I'm not totally certain of that), but I waited several minutes before reporting things to you. I don't know what you mean by "console". This computer has weird function keys: instead of them being activated when I hold down the Function key, the alternate features run automatically, so F12 doesn't do anything except turning off the Internet. I guess you'll have to give me more details; sorry, but I don't think I'll be able to help unless I understand better what you mean. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. What I suspected for the monobook problem turned out to be true–"mw-page-base" is not defined in monoboox–so I (hopefully) fixed that problem. Could you try to run the script again in monobook? As not being able to use F12, Ctrl+2 should bring you straight to the Console, and nothing on your keyboard should interfere with Ctrl... If that doesn't work, though, the developer tools can also be accessed through the Tools menu in the top right (it looks like a little gear). Click that icon and then select "F12 Developer Tools". Then you can click the console tab and copy/paste over any errors to me.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I can definitely see one change: instead of giving me the Parent bit, it went straight to Autauga County. However, there's seemingly a browser problem, as it stalled like last night when I ran Vector in IE, just sitting at Autauga County and waiting until a message from the browser "wikipedia.org is not responding due to a long-running script". When I clicked the stop-script button, it crashed the tab and restarted it, rather than simply stopping; I've never yet been able to figure out how to stop the script (in either browser) without closing the tab. All I can tell you about the Console is that the message is "Refresh the page to see messages that may have occurred before the F12 tools were opened", both before and after I tried to run the script. Meanwhile, in Firefox the script starts fine (I closed it before running it too very long) with Monobook; it seems to run slightly more slowly, but it's not a big deal, and the difference isn't so big that I can give you anything quantifiable. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so what that sounds like to me is what I was describing in Chrome where the progress div doesn't update (so it would be stuck above Autauga County the entire time); however, because you get the "unresponsive script" message, the script must actually be running in the background–that message just means it is taking longer than "normal" scripts, which is to be expected. My browsers all have that warning turned off by default, so I never see it. If my guess is true then when you click "Stop script", the progress div should update saying you were on some county out of the total (assuming IE is logical, which any programmer knows to be untrue). Even if that isn't the case, if instead of clicking "Stop script" when you get that message, you click "Ignore" or whatever the equivalent is for your browser, the script should continue to run (though still not updating the progress div) and eventually finish... you just won't know how far along you actually are throughout the run. When the script finally does finish, it will update the progress div as if it were doing so all along.

The root of this problem is the synchronous method I use to load all the pages in the background. In Firefox, the UI (i.e. what you see in the progress div) still updates, but in Chrome and IE, the UI is completely locked up and won't update until the script ends. To fix this would require a complete rewrite of the code to use callback functions instead of loops, which is on the script's to-do list. Now that I have a little time since I'm on Christmas break, I may look into that, but that would be quite a task... For now it seems to me like it will eventually finish in all three browsers, even though in Chrome and IE there is no updating of the progress div. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, and I'll try to see what I can do.

To test my theory, could you possibly try to run the script in IE again and ignore the unresponsive script message? It may come up multiple times, so just ignore it every time you encounter it. If after ~3 hours (the script usually takes 2 and some change), the script still has not finished, I'm wrong and there is still something else going on here. Sorry to ask so much of you, but if I had access to IE, I would do it myself... If you don't want to waste that much time, just use Firefox haha :P--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Turns out that you identified the situation accurately: nothing appeared to happen, but it ran. However, it's taking prohibitively long; if I run updates, I'll use Firefox. After a bit more than an hour, I got an error message, and it had only reached Kansas; and it just now gave me an error message in Kentucky, saying that it had run out of memory and was aborting. At this rate, it's going to take an additional hour just to finish! No way that I'm going to use IE for this process. Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I started to look at the code today to try to rewrite it for better behavior in non-Firefox browsers.

Then I realized the code was 55 kB long and used a ton of variables that would either have to be converted to global variables or passed as arguments to callback functions. I would literally have to scrap almost everything and completely rebuild the structure of the code, and, frankly, it already works and Firefox is free to download haha. I realize that is a major cop-out, but I really can't be bothered. If anyone would like to try to take up the task of making the code friendly to other browsers, be my guest. You can copy the code to your own userspace and experiment all you want. Sorry :\--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No complaint about the situation; it would be convenient to have it working in IE, but I understand that you've got plenty of things to do without time to rewrite 55KB of code. Thanks for the constant held! Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre NRIS-only situation

I'm not expecting a speedy response, since the Sugar Bowl's on TV here as well :-) When you get done celebrating victory or mourning defeat, you may want to consult Butchertown, Louisville, which has a weird NRIS-only error. Besides NRIS, it cites something else with {{ref|1}} and # {{note|1}} {{cite web|title=Community Resource Network|url=http://crndata.org/Neighborhoods/WEB%ad_NIGHBORHOODS/Butchertown.htm|accessdate=2005-11-18}} These two citations are placed slightly differently, and apparently the bot's code doesn't know how to recognise the "note|1" citation. I've converted this citation to <ref> formatting, so the bot shouldn't retag it. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

From that template's documentation, using {{ref}} and {{note}} are no longer encouraged, and any instances of them should be converted to the <ref> format. As such, I think if anything, the bot tagging this article helped bring it out of obscurity to clean it up. If the template was used widely (it's only used on ~17k pages out of the millions in the encyclopedia), I might consider supporting it, but since it's rarely used and discouraged even when it is used, I think what you did was the most desirable option–simply change the refs to the preferred format. Thanks for pointing that out, though.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Another NRIS situation

I just expanded Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks Lodge (Montrose, Colorado), but looking at the old revision, it was NRIS-only but wasn't tagged. I think it was because National Register of Historic Places listings in Montrose County, Colorado pointed at Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks Lodge (a redlink) until today. Just thought to let you know. Chris857 (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The bot only looks at pages linked from the county lists (all of which are dumped here btw), so since that article wasn't linked from its county list, it wasn't tagged.

On a side note, that article should probably be moved to the undisambiguated title if there aren't any other "Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks Lodge"s due to WP:UNDAB.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternately, since I suspect there are several similarly-named buildings that don't use that exact phrasing, perhaps the undisambiguated title should be redirected to Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks or List of Elks buildings (which appears to be the closest thing to a disambiguation page for Elks lodges). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Template help...

Morning, I am looking for some help on a template I put together: Template:OKSHPOref. It's a web cite reference template similar to the NRISref template, except linking to the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office. I have a rudimentary template set up, but have to pass the listing's refnum manually, otherwies the link is incorrect. I would like to be able to have the template pull the refnum from the Infobox NRHP or somewhere else, so I don't have to add the refnum every time. Can you help me accomplish this? I added the template to the listings in Adair County Oklahoma for testing purposes, see Adair County Courthouse (Oklahoma) for an example. Thanks. 25or6to4 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is impossible. A template has to be completely self-contained; it does not have access to other templates on the page. That said, this may be possible through WP:Lua, a relatively new system that I have not yet looked into but looks promising.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Stats for disambiguation pages

Just curious: when the script encounters a disambiguation page, is it supposed to count it as a redlink? The stats page lists National Register of Historic Places listings in Darke County, Ohio as having 22 articles, although it has 24 bluelinks. One of those is newness (I just created Broadway Bridge a few minutes ago), but until this edit, it linked to Waring House instead of to Waring House (Greenville, Ohio), since our favorite substub creator converted it into a disambiguation page without updating the links. As a result, when the script was last run, there were 22 links to articles, 1 link to a disambiguation page, and 2 redlinks; I'm confused because I thought disambiguation pages were treated as untagged or unrated, or something like that. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Links to dab pages are treated as redlinks. This is because usually when a dab link is present, there was no article on the subject when it was added to the list. The dab page is often created afterwards for another property and the NRHP listing is still unarticled. The kind of situation you bring up here is a rarity, as most people who convert existing pages into dabs clean up the mess afterwards.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense; I just wanted to make sure that this was what you wanted it to do. Just wondering (1) how many other pages like this he's moved carelessly, (2) if our lists don't show up in those lists that are used for disambiguation fixing, and (3) is there any chance that the bot could stick a list of disambiguation pages somewhere comparable to User:NationalRegisterBot/NRISOnly? Nyttend (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Here's an edit fixing another one. I looked back to January 1 and only found that one. Couldn't be bothered to go back any farther.
2. I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.
3. Do you mean this?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

On #2, perhaps you've seen people create pages such as Georgia (disambiguation) or Bloomfield Township, Ohio (disambiguation) just so that pages intentionally linking to Georgia and Bloomfield Township, Ohio don't show up on disambiguation reports. Not something you can do anything about; I'm just curious. And on #3, I meant if the bot could produce a page saying essentially "The following lists have one or more links to disambiguation pages; here's what they are"; for example, had it done this a few days ago, it would say something like "Darke County, Ohio: Waring House". Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean for #3 (though I still don't get #2.. never really worked with dabs before). I'll see what I can do with that. I'll also see if I can produce any more useful lists like all NRIS-only articles, which I believe you suggested before. I'll notify you when I get around to that.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I played around with the code a little bit last night and let it run while I was sleeping, but I ran into a few errors with the list of dab pages. I think I've fixed those errors, but I don't have time now to re-run the code. I'll hopefully run it tonight while I'm teaching since I have three 2-hour classes in a row (kill me now). Anyway, even though the dab list didn't work, I was able to generate User:NationalRegisterBot/NRISOnly/All, a list of all NRIS-only articles in existence. If the dab list works tonight, it will be at User:NationalRegisterBot/NRISOnly#Links to disambiguation pages.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The bot was just updated. Surprisingly, it only found 5 links to dab pages. Apparently we're pretty good at getting rid of them :P. I made the bot output "what links here" next to all the pages, so we can find the offending NRHP list there.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

After seeing your note, I've fixed the existing disambiguation links. Thanks for the help! And don't worry about my #2; it was an "I wonder...", and I wasn't expecting you to be able (or even interested enough) to answer. I quite appreciate all the bot work, both because it's invaluable and because I know I'd never be able to do it. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:NationalRegisterBot/NRISOnly

Just wondering if I might be able to help with the debugging on the duplicates list. Several Ohio sites have more than one occurrence of their county list next to the name; for example, the Mill-Related Buildings of Stratford Road has eight links to the Delaware County list, and the Carl H. Shier Farm and Louis Rings Farm have three each for Franklin County. Each of these is linked several times — there are a bunch of thoroughly insignificant houses on Stratford Road, so I thought to cover them together, and both farms comprise a group of individually listed buildings, and it would be silly to have a short article on the barn, a short article on the chicken coop, etc., when we can have a better single article on the farm. However, these links aren't as common as I'd expect: I cannot explain why the Franklin County farms appear here, but the Zaleski Mound Group (linked three times from the Vinton County list, since it's three NR-listed mounds) doesn't appear on this page at all. No need to reply; this is just an "in case you didn't know" note. Nyttend (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of debugging the duplicates list, I noticed that the Kincaid Site in Illinois isn't showing up on the list. My guess as to what's going on is that the Pope County list links to "Kincaid Site" and the Massac County list links to "Kincaid Mounds State Historic Site", even though one is a redirect to the other. Perhaps that's the same reason that the mound group in Ohio isn't showing up on the list. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The fact that these articles show up in the output at all confuses even me, so I'll look into why that's happening. My code is supposed to get rid of in-county duplicates (i.e. ones that don't span county lines), so my guess is that I forgot to add the code in to do that for redlinks and only treated the bluelinks. That would explain why the Mill buildings and the farms show up (they're both redlinks) while the Zaleski article (a bluelink) doesn't.

I've been slowly ironing out the kinks and refining the output... slowly mainly because it takes ~3-6 hours per bot run depending on my internet connection which widely varies in the different locations I have the time to run the script. The latest run I think is the most successful/accurate so far, although because of the nature of my algorithm, any straying from what I have taken to be the "standard" makes it freak out. The problem cases you pointed out (and undoubtedly some others that we just haven't spotted yet) are due to not following WP:NRHPMOS#Naming conventions, which says we are supposed to link to the official NRHP listing names, even if they are redirects. Piped links shouldn't be used on county lists.

For my code to work as expected for the Mill-Related Buildings case you point out, the county list should link to 8 different targets, all of which will eventually be redirects to the same final article. An example of this is on the Lauderdale County, Mississippi list, where most of the historic district links are redirects to Historic districts in Meridian, Mississippi. The county list points to the redirects, not the final location. If the Mill buildings were set up like this, that article wouldn't show up on my list.

In order to make my algorithm work truly without fail, we'll have to go through all the counties and change any non-standard links like these to point to the official NRHP names, creating redirects as necessary. I might be able to automate that process, but that would require a secondary task approval for the bot, so I'd like to avoid it if necessary. The bot has only just finished running, and I will eventually get around to comparing its latest output to our manually entered duplicates to see how extensive a problem the one you pointed out is, so hopefully it isn't too bad. The majority of county lists in my experience follow standards, so we will see. Thanks for pointing that out, though; you may have just saved me a week of head-scratching! :P

@TheCatalyst31: You are correct that since the county lists link to different titles it isn't showing up on my list. This ties into what I was saying to Nyttend. If both county lists don't link to the official title, my script won't think it's a duplicate. In fact, it is only in this latest run that I switched to using unredirected targets instead of resolved targets to find the duplicates... mostly to get rid of cases like Old Natchez Trace segments listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which is not technically an NRHP listing, so it shouldn't be on the duplicates list. As such, you can see that in older outputs, the Kincaid Site was included. If you make both lists point to the official title, it will show up when I run the bot the next time. This is an unfortunate consequence, but I think moving to standards rather than coding in exceptions is a better way to go. This is a programmer's perspective, though, haha, so take that with a grain of salt...

Like I said, I'm still working out the kinks, so don't expect the output to be 100% error-proof just yet. Maybe I'll figure out a way around going through all the counties soon.. but for now, sticking to the standards is all I can really think of. Maybe I'll have a eureka moment while I'm sleeping tonight or something. We'll see. Thanks again for pointing these things out!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with mandating links to the listing name is that it doesn't work well with redlinks. With something like the Meridian historic districts, it's workable because the topic is currently covered somewhere. With something like these miniature houses, or the Round Barns in the Black Swamp of Ohio MPS, we need to have an article on the MPS because there's so little coverage for the individual listings: links to the MPS title are the only way we're going to avoid articles such as "Mill Worker House No. 1 is a historic house in Delaware, Ohio. It was built and/or has significance in 1858. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1991". I don't generally change links to the MPS (see the Mechanicsburg MRA; every link at National Register of Historic Places listings in Champaign County, Ohio goes to a different page), but I've done it in the rare circumstances that I've checked every available source without finding substantial coverage. Yes, the separate links are normally a good idea, but in exceptions such as closely connected topics or MPS subjects whose coverage is all together in the MPS documentation, we need "group" links in order to facilitate encyclopedic coverage instead of the creation of stuff like Round Barn (Lima, Ohio). Having a bot to change links like this wouldn't be workable (WP:CONTEXTBOT). Curious, would it be possible to ignore the links for duplicate-counting purposes, using the refnums instead? For example, it could decide that the Kincaid Mounds are duplicated after discovering that 66000326 appears in both the Massac County list and the Pope County list, and it could decide that the Montrose Historic Districts in AL and PA are different because they have different refnums. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully not too many people even pay attention to redlinks until they create an article. The cases you've brought up in Ohio are the oddballs haha. Why one would take the time to point all the links to one page and not just go ahead and create the combined page is beyond me. I understand that you're trying to facilitate someone else's future creation, but the official NRHP names should still be redirects, even after the combined article is created. By changing the redlinks, you're actually kind of making it more difficult for that redirect creation. Also, what if someone in the mean time creates an article about one of the houses anyway, without knowledge of our county lists? Our county list won't even pick it up, and neither will my bot. I still stick to the idea that county lists linking directly to the official name, even if it is a redirect or it might be merged into a combined article, has way more positives than negatives.

As for the refnums, that's a very good idea that I hadn't thought of, and I no doubt would immediately switch to that if my code were set up differently. As it is now, though, I don't actually load the wikitext of (the only place where the refnum shows up). Instead I load what we humans see (the HTML rendering) and extract the titles/images from there. It just so happened that this method was easier to program when I started this project haha, and to change it now would require a total rewrite.. kind of like the whole supporting Chrome/IE thing. Yes, this is a lazy cop out haha, but the time that I would spend restructuring the entire code would be enormous, and the overall speed/utility of the code wouldn't be improved that much if at all I'm pretty sure.

So essentially if I'm going to use the refnum with the way the code is set up now, it has to be visible in the HTML source... Problem is, most people don't think the refnum is encyclopedic, and making it visible probably won't be very popular if we bring it up at WT:NRHP. I can think of one workaround, though, and that is to edit {{NRHP row}} to output the refnum in a hidden span. This span would not be visible to the human eye, but my code could find it to aid in finding duplicates. We already did something like this for the WLM upload links, but I would need the hidden span to be permanent to be useful for my bot. I'll bring this up at the project talk page to see what everyone thinks. Thanks for giving me the idea!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. What's the point of the refnum parameter if it doesn't output anything in the source? I assumed that it produced some sort of hidden data, just like the county parameter. I agree that it wouldn't be helpful to make the refnum visible, but even if this issue of duplicates hadn't come up, I'd definitely have supported adding it in some sort of hidden text. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The refnum parameter is only used during WLM to point the upload link (which is now commented out of the template) to the right place so that the picture can be tagged with a refnum on commons. If WLM isn't going on, the refnum parameter is not used at all. I edited the sandbox of the row template to include it, so I'll wait for a few more people to respond at the talk page to implement it.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Re centered text, I'm sorry; I figured the sandbox was there to facilitate testing (I previewed a sandbox-transclusion before making the edit) and to make it easier to have edits made to the main template by people who didn't have the userrights to edit it. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you say "The reason they are protected is to prevent someone from slamming the job queue"; Wikipedia:High-risk templates and the relevant chunk of the protection policy (go to WP:UPROT and scroll down a little) say nothing whatsoever about the job queue or related matters; the only reasons they give for protection are vandalism prevention. I'd never make this kind of edit to {{coord}}, but that's because it's so basic and so critical that any edits need to be discussed first. After all {{NRHP row}} isn't comparable, so an edit requiring reversion isn't anywhere near as damaging as an edit to the coord template that requires reversion :-) Nyttend (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to produce the sense of "this is an argument"; I was confused and trying to understand why you said what you did. Thanks for the link; I don't remember ever seeing such a discussion before. I know about {{high-risk}}, but from it I get the impression that it (and its associated concern with server load) is only for the top top top templates (it's currently transcluded on about 300 pages), not for something like the NRHP row. My thinking is probably influenced by experience at WP:RFPP, whether requesting protection, implementing people's requests, or seeing other admins implement (or deny) people's requests — the potential for vandalism is really the only thing that gets discussed there as a reason for indefinite protection of templates. Nyttend (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Renumbering script

Thank you for pointing me to that script, and for your top-notch work. I was aware that some users had an automated approach to renumbering, but I never felt like doing the research/asking the questions to set it up for myself. Your courtesy in contacting me made it easy. Cheers! — Ipoellet (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A possible issue with the renumbering script

While attempting to renumber this list, I ran into a fairly unusual situation that breaks the renumbering script. The list has a hidden listing for a pending nomination, so the script renumbered that, which caused the visible listings to be off. I'm not sure if there's anything you can do about it, or if it's even worth fixing considering how few lists have this problem, but I thought I'd let you know. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I had already attempted to deal with commented out rows before after someone brought it up to me a while back, but my method was flawed. In the article that was brought to me before, there were no comments in the description column, so everything was fine. Because on this Newberry County list there were extra comments that didn't include NRHP row, my code didn't handle them correctly. To fix the problem, I added a routine where I just strip out all the comments that do not include NRHP row.

On an unrelated note, I'm getting closer to fixing the bot to get duplications right. I had to wait for the job queue to catch up, which takes a lot longer than I remember for some reason. After waiting for over a week, I ran the bot for 7 hours (I'm in a place with slow internet) last night only to find out that I had made a mistake in the code. I still haven't figured it out, but I'll work on it now that the renumbering script is fixed. Hopefully I'll be able to get some decent output next run. Thanks again!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

NRHP stats, Bedford (city) and Bedford County, Virginia

I noticed in File:NRHP Articled Counties.svg that Bedford, Virginia is apparently counted or colored separately from Bedford County, Virginia (it stands out because in the current data the city shows as a light blue dot, the only such point in VA). The city was formerly independent, but has been merged back into the county; the code that updates this probably needs to be tweaked in some way. Magic♪piano 15:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have fixed the file on my computer by removing the city of Bedford all together, so when I run the next update (probably later tonight or tomorrow sometime), the problem should be fixed on-wiki. If you find any more errors, don't hesitate to let me know!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Refnums in NRHP row

I've responded to your message on my talk page there. Thanks. — Ipoellet (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Multi-state duplicates

Thanks for telling me. I was actually going to ask you how that was coming, since I noticed the list at United States National Register of Historic Places listings has two more duplicates than the one on the Progress page and I wasn't sure what was missing; your table still has four more duplicates than that list, though (as of yesterday, anyway). I already found three refnum errors in the table (which I've fixed); there might be one more, or there might just be an overlooked duplicate. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yea, it's coming along, slowly but surely. I actually got the multi-state table to work in about two days total, but the individual states are more complicated because of the fact that some counties inside states have duplicates within them that need to be taken care of before tallying up the duplicates across counties. The only way I can think to make it work is to manually consider all these counties, which takes a lot of time to code in. I have more time to devote to it on the weekends than during the week because of classes/teaching, so that's when I do most of the work (and when I run the bot to update everything, which takes 6 hours on its own O_o). This weekend, though, I'll be heading to New Orleans for some Mardi Gras festivities with friends, so I probably won't be able to do much. Also in the next few weeks I have midterms and projects to do, so work will generally be slower then. I hope to have everything working, at least in a primitive state, in about a month or so. If you want to keep up with my progress (or even try to figure out how to make the code more efficient), you can watchlist User:Dudemanfellabra/NRISOnly.js, though the site won't let you edit there since it's in my userspace. As a fair warning, when I start working, there are many edits in a row, so if you're like me and hate to have your watchlist crowded by something like that, don't feel obligated. Just giving you the option to keep track of things. Thanks for the continued support/help!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)