Inclusion of non-NHL historic NPS units in NHL lists
Having recently been working on some NHL lists, I had occasion to read the failed FLC nomination for the New York NHL list. A specific objection was raised concerning the inclusion of non-NHL park service areas as a separate table of entries, and the nomination was seemingly failed in part for this reason. (I note that the featured Indiana list excludes a separate section, which would contain George Rogers Clark National Historical Park, and the featured Michigan list entire fails to mention Keweenaw National Historical Park, the only historical NPS unit in Michigan. Alabama, whose NHL list is also featured, has no historic NPS units.)
I then came across the following observation: When the NHL registry was established in 1960, Interior policy was established that park service units were not per se eligible for inclusion in the NHL registry. (Those with JSTOR access can read the relevant detail at JSTOR10.1525/tph.2007.29.2.81, footnote on p. 90.) This policy effectively grandfathers out of the NHL registry all "historic" units of the park service established before then -- NHLs may still become units of the park service, but not vice versa.
The question (and I will invite participants in the failed NY list nomination to weigh in here) is whether this policy is a sufficient reason to include non-NHL "historic" NPS units on featured NHL lists (in a separate section, as in the NY list). (Unfortunately User:Doncram, who prosecuted the NY list FLC, is presently blocked, which may impede his input on the matter...)
I'd be favorable to including NPS Historic units in a separate table, IF (a big if) a) it's clear that these are indeed of the same stature as NHLs, b) there is a reliable source for inclusion (does the NPS actually list these out in a clear manner?), and c) everybody can agree to put these in the same set of lists. In general, I think that different folks can do things differently around here, but what's included on the lists shouldn't be a matter of personal opinion. Rather it should be a clear bright line that everybody agrees to. Smallbones (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The NHL lists published by the NPS include an appendix that lists all of the "National Historic x" for the relevant geography. This I imagine is the origin of the idea that they should be listed with the NHLs, although individuals with a longer history in this project may have more background on that. One fundamental difference separating NHLs is that there is no clear expectation that any given NHL properties will eventually be acquired by the NPS, which was apparently one of the ideas influencing pre-1960 designations. Magic♪piano03:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
So I read this as a) very possibly, b) yes, and c) it's up to us to decide. So let's decide - I'd imagine that several others would want to put in their 2 cents first. I'd lean toward "include". Smallbones (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I never understood why Doncram wanted to include those in the same article when they could just as easily be separate lists, but he was always vehement about it and did so much work otherwise that I didn't feel like challenging him too much on it. But, although I hate to be seen as taking advantage of his current longterm block, I'd suggest there's never been a better time to take them out. I was always of the opinion, expressed in the FLC, that a list of "National Historic Landmarks in X" should have only present and former NHLs. And now that there seems to be an NPS policy backing that up, well, what are we waiting for? Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with removal for the same reasons as Daniel presents. I vaguely remember a long discussion with Doncram about including state-level landmarks at the Connecticut NHL list, even though they weren't NHLs; somehow I couldn't get him to understand that his argument was like an argument for including state senators at List of United States Senators from Connecticut. Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I think any argument for inclusion would go: under current legislation, absent the policy statement, some or all of these NPS areas would arguably be eligible for NHL status (i.e. the principal reason they are not NHLs is the policy, and not eligibility). I think this is a weak argument for including them on these lists; we have (or can/should have) per-state "List of NPS areas in X" that provide a suitable place for them, and the rules are, well, the rules. Magic♪piano20:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Citing NRIS data?
Wikipedia:WikiProject_National Register of Historic_Places/Style guide#NRIS_reference lists a citation format for NRIS listings which points them all to http://www.nr.nps.gov/ - a broken link. Even when that site was working at that URL, there was no means to link directly to one specific record in the manner (for instance) that the radio/TV station query templates use.
Perhaps something like the broadcast template {{tvq}}: [http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call={{{1}}} Query the FCC's TV station database for {{{1}}}] should be created with {{nris}}: [http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov NRHP reference #{{{1}}}] on the [[National Register of Historic Places]]
The parameter would be for display only, at least until such time as the NPS ever creates something to which we can link for one record directly, but a standardised template would mean that any change to the URL (ie: nr.nps.gov → nrhp.focus.nps.gov) would only require one edit (to a template) instead of breaking links on every article for every site on the entire National Register. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I completely removed the standalone reference from the style guide (sorry I didn't catch that earlier) since the entire purpose of the {{NRISref}} template was so that if in the future it became possible to link to an individual entry in the NRIS/Focus database, we would have a centralized location for all the references. A bot went through a while back and took out all standalone references, and any added since then should be replaced with the standard template.
Though not nearly as widely used (if at all.. I didn't check the What Links Here), there also exist {{NRHP Focus}}, {{NRHP nomination}}, and {{NRHP pictures}}, all three of which take the reference number as the first parameter. The NRHP Focus template will link as directly as possible (still one click away) to the individual database entry in Focus, and the nomination/pictures templates link directly to the nomination document/accompanying pictures if they are on Focus.
I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll get around to adding the outdated link problem to the FAQ page shortly. If anyone wants to beat me to the punch, feel free.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I checked Special:LinkSearch/*.nr.nps.gov and it finds 1760 instances of the broken link. Some are userspace or talk pages, but enough are in articles (846 in Category:All NRHP articles with dead external links with the 'NRIS dead link' template) that this looks like it might be a good job for a 'bot of some sort to try to clean up?
The bot actually already did what it was supposed to do. It tagged all these articles as having the dead link in it and made the error category. Now we in the project are faced with the task of going through the category and cleaning them up. The reason the bot didn't just take out the link entirely is that we don't know if the NRIS information in the article is correct (i.e. that it matches the latest version of the database). The articles in this category must be taken care of individually.
As for the |refnum= thing, the NRIS database does not allow one to point directly to an individual entry in the database. The refnum parameter would do nothing for that template. That's one of the reasons why the NRIS is occasionally disliked by the community at large.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Think this is under our scope? If so, how should I assess its importance? I put an {{advertisement}} tag on it because it sounds like it's ripped straight from some pamphlet (though I couldn't find any obvious copyvio). What do you guys think?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The trip from Gettysburg to Monticello, in a very general sense, is of interest to us. The scenic byway and the National Heritage Area could legitimately be placed within our scope, if it isn't already. (isn't there a scenic byway sub-project somewhere, though?) But the article is on the PR organization that promotes the area - not likely to fit anywhere or be notable by itself. I'll suggest starting a JTHGN Heritage Area article and merging any actual non-advertising content into it. Smallbones (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The article is titled JTHG National Heritage Area (sorry for not linking to it before; I changed it up there now), so I suppose we don't really have to merge anything. So should it be tagged as related importance?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I've been writing stubbish articles on National Heritage Areas and will take a stab at de-spamming the article; I have a navbox and a fairly standard format I've developed, along with categories, etc. I'd certainly put it in the NRHP scope. NHAs are sort of quasi-official heritage marketing programs in collaboration with the NPS, and they can vary from small areas to the entire state of Tennessee. "Related importance" would be about right. Acroterion(talk)03:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I've made a first pass and dealt with the worst of it: the original author should be commended for providing references, even if they couldn't turn off the PR-speak. I'll come back and re-work it in the next couple of days. Acroterion(talk)03:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
State-specific NRHP templates
This weekend, I created two state-specific template categories for NRHP articles; One for North Dakota, and one for Arkansas. Unfortunatley, I don't think they'd qualify New articles and pictures chapter. Am I wrong? ----DanTD (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Any photo requests
Perhaps a silly question, but...does anyone have any specific requests for images from northwestern Indiana? I'm attending the Preserving Historic Places conference (put on by the SHPO, Indiana Landmarks, and my academic department), up in Whiting, and I may have a little time to squeeze in some photography. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, what I was meaning was "are there any places in the area for which you'd like photos for your own purposes?" I'll be staying with friends in Lafayette on Friday evening, so I'll have a little time for photos after the end of the conference, in case anyone has a specific request. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually I also did not think that Jack Boucher took the photo. It just did not look as good as many color photos he did. KudzuVine (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get your downtown WL images. I don't remember either of the buildings specifically, but I can easily imagine where they are without looking at the map; I got the bank back last May, and the Jesse Andrew House is visible just down the street from the Chocolate Shop. I'm hoping to go on the Beverly Shores tour, although of course I don't know precisely where they'll take me. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Announcement
I went on the Beverly Shores tour today; I got exterior photos for all of the CPs and interior for several, thanks to several friendly residents. I'll see when I can get them uploaded. By the way, expect a bunch of new listings for modernist architecture here in Indiana before long — they've put together an MPS for houses in Beverly Shores (most or all of which I wasn't able to get, since we visited the area on a bus), and Patrick Andrus from NPS was telling us that there's an MPS in the works for Lustrons in Indiana. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Might be good to mention that I have pictures (which I will postprocess and upload on a scale of a month) from Windsor, VT; Keene, NH; Dublin, NH; Gloucester, MA; and Killingly, CT; in total several dozens. What I had from NV and CA, I all uploaded, though I am still planning to write several articles and may upload photos of monumennts which are already illustrated. May be it can save someone a trip to these places (which are nice though and deserve a trip).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:National Historic Landmarks in Washington, D.C.
The lists are usually the most correct source on here. Sometimes people that don't know the difference between an NHL and a regular NRHP listing put an article in the category mistakenly. Any articles that are not on the list of NHLs should be removed from the category.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Another one of the four is the list itself; because I removed the RR retirement building, we're down to 87 pages that belong, 1 list, and 2 errors. Nyttend (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I checked the category members and found and removed a number of non-NHL entries from the category. There are now 74 pages in the category, 2 short of the expected number. There are a few discrepancies that others might like to look at and decide on:
I just changed the link a day or two ago, because the NHL database says that it's the home itself, not the cottage. Until my edits, the list linked the cottage; I'll switch around the categories. Unfortunately, a lot of work was needed; several links went to the wrong place, and probably at least a quarter of the NHLs did not display the official NHL names. Nyttend (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Resources for finding NRHP nominations
All nominations online at NPS Focus
All nominations online at state-level or other source
All nominations online, but require payment
Some nominations online at state-level or other source
I created the image on the right earlier today when I was cleaning up our Editor help page. While some NRHP nominations have been scanned into Focus in every state, the NPS lists several states as having all NRHP nomination forms online. Those states are labeled in dark green on the map.
For other states, members of this project have found some or all of the the nomination forms for properties listed in a given state from state-level offices such as SHPOs or Archives and History departments. States whose nominations are available from a non-NPS source are labelled in light green or yellow on the map. Light green is for states that have all nominations online and yellow is for states which have some (though not necessarily more than Focus has). Ohio is colored yellow-green because though all NRHP nominations are available online, there is a charge for them.
The map shows us just how limited the amount of downloadable information actually is, regarding official NRHP documents. Of course, there are always third-party resources such as news articles, books, etc., from which we can gather information to write articles, but it is kind of disheartening that there are comparatively few outlets supplying this official material.
If anyone in the project knows of any sources that supply some or all of the NRHP nominations for the grey states in the map, let us know, and they can be added to our state-specific sources list as well as this map. If anyone can turn a yellow state green, that would be welcome as well! Keep up the good work!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Except for restricted-address sites, I believe that Focus provides all Kentucky nominations; I don't remember running into any listings whose Focus pages didn't exist. Indiana is just almost 100% online; I'm in the middle of downloading as many nominations as possible (makes it easier to access information when I'm on the road for photo trips), and I've not yet found too many non-archaeological sites whose forms I couldn't reach. The level of coverage here is comparable to that of Illinois. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Right, there aren't any address restricted nominations on Focus to my knowledge. It may well be true that most Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois nominations are in Focus, but the source for the list of states is this status page on the Focus website. None of those states are included on that list. In pretty much all of the grey states in the map, there are at least some nominations online–some more than others–but without some percent tally from Focus, including those statistics on the map would be speculation and/or unreliable.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the lack of clarity — I didn't mean what it sounded like. Since you marked Illinois as having everything, you might as well do the same for Indiana, since almost 99% of Indiana is online at its state site, and I've encountered a few different Illinois nominations that weren't so available at its state site, even though I've searched for Illinois nominations far fewer times. I also wasn't aware that you were working off a specific list of states with Focus nominations done; I thought you were going by experience from looking for nominations. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, understood. The reason I made Illinois green and Indiana yellow was because of wording here. Illinois says, "This site provides scanned copies of the NRHP text documents," while Indiana says, "nomination forms for most sites are available..." If that list didn't say that all the nominations in a state were online, I didn't make that state green; I didn't actually go to the websites, though.
I suppose I could change the categories to "All on Focus", "Most on Focus", "Most or all at state", and "Some at state". I really wish Ohio didn't charge haha. They need an all-together separate color because of that. Lame.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You wish Ohio didn't charge...what do you think I feel? Except for Michigan, we're surrounded by states that have just about all of the nominations online, and the only way I can get information about the typical site (relatively obscure, not covered by anything online except mirrors of NRIS) without bothering people in Washington is to consult a book that I have that gives little sketches of information about most properties, but not large amounts of information. So yes, it is rather annoying :-) For some reason, we're just about the opposite of "priority" for NPS; some time back, I requested the nomination for a specific property in northwestern Ohio and was given it by email; when I told them of my surprise that they were scanning, the staffer responded that the plan was to get Ohio onto Focus just about last. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
California appears to have been scanned in, though you can't tell from the search function, which is borked as usual. You can manually enter registration numbers into the pdfhost url and get docs, and the status page lists California now, and Colorado too. Acroterion(talk)20:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Has anybody run into this or used it before? There's a Wikipedia stub on it - not sure it is notable enough.
The data base looks complete enough (includes post-battle fences, street markers etc. at the Gettysburg battlefield) but a bit clumsy to use at
the link. Has anybody downloaded it and put it into usable form?
My particular context is regarding List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield which is within our scope as part of the NHL Gettysburg Battlefield.
The article is a mess now, but it looks like User:Carptrash is starting to get it in order. I view the best form of the article to be a "List of Public Art" and should go in that format see:List of public art in Philadelphia for a format that I basically adapted from the old county list format used in WP:NRHP.
There is also the Smithsonian's SIRIS database for public (and other) art which is fairly difficult to use and harder to get a good link to.
There are supposedly 1328 monuments at Gettysburg according to NPS, but only 1100 entries for all the Gettysburg sites in the List of Classified Structures, and maybe 800 in SIRIS.
Anybody especially interested in Gettysburg monuments should probably go to that article to respond. Here, I'm particularly interested in the use of these databases and if anybody has recommendations or experience using them.
OK, missed that one. Maybe it would be better not to link things to "here" so that they can be searched and identified. The basic question still stands - has anybody used this productively? My problem is that it is so big - listing all the fences around monuments and cast iron street signs makes it quite clumsy to work with. Any suggestions? Smallbones (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe Doncram has had some success using it. I know little about what he's done with it, but he was the one that put the link there (and the "here" part.. he has a tendency to just dump stuff places instead of making it readable/understandable). Unfortunately he's blocked right now, so he can't comment here. Maybe try to email him? Alternatively you could look through is talk page archives and see if you can find anything. What exactly are you trying to find out about the database? It looks pretty straight forward to me. Select the state/park, click submit, and it gives you a list of structures. Click on the number in the left column and you get a brief summary of the structure. What else is there to know? If you ask a more pointed question, I may be able to answer it.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, there's too much garbage in with the good stuff. there's a list of headings, which seem to sort (more or less) - headings "Park, Structure Number, Preferred Structure Name, Structure State, Significance Level" Is there any meaning in the Structure number? Has the whole thing perhaps been downloaded so that we can see the results of sorts (rather than 20 items at a time).
I'd just like to see a list of monuments, rather than barns, fences, and road markers. So now I can see a full record if I know the exact name, but getting a group of records seems impossible (except by park name or state - which are too large). Hope this helps you understand what I want, but I'm not sure if anybody has already done something similar. See here. Smallbones (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The headings do sort (alphabetically). Unfortunately, the search box included on the top of the page only searches exact matches, not partial ones. I don't know of anyone who has downloaded the database, or even if that's possible, but that would seem the only way (short of asking the NPS to change their system) to be able to see only properties that have the word "monument" in the title.
The Structure Number appears to be a NPS system of tagging structures inside each park, kind of like the NRIS reference number, but more localized. For our purposes it doesn't really mean anything useful.
It appears as if there is a way to get more than 25 listings to appear at a time, but I can't get it to work yet. The page is coded in ASP, so it uses server-side code to dynamically generate the content you see when you search. If you look at the source generated, there are several JavaScript variables that seem to correspond to the number of listings shown per page, how they're sorted, etc., but the names of the asp variables don't seem to match the js variables. One example is the "PageNo" variable in js; its doppelganger in asp is "PAGE", as you can see in the URLs of the page numbers. There are js variables "RangeFrom", "RangeTo", "Paging", and "PageSize" which probably have asp counterparts, but I haven't been successful at finding them.
Pretty much my conclusion is that the search system isn't that great for parks as large as Gettysburg, although for smaller parks it can be useful. If you want to get a more customizable search, someone will need to find out if the database is downloadable, upload it to a server like Elkman did with the NRIS data, and allow people to query it. That, or we can petition the NPS to make their system more useful.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I've generally used as a source of last resort. It's main value is as a source of images (though they must be used with due care, since some weren't shot by Park Service staff with an EasyPic: you have to check the EXIF data). Every now and then it yields useful context, espeically for historic districts.It's hard to use and inconsistent. Acroterion(talk)20:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
My question is this: Since National Heritage Areas are not affiliated in any way with the NRHP or even the National Park Service for that matter, should these be included under the scope of the project? I believe I have edited another article some time back and justified its inclusion by saying the NHA includes several NRHP sites, but looking back that rationale could be used to put nearly every city article in the country under our scope. Where should the line be? I think I fall on the side of putting these with WikiProject Protected areas or maybe WikiProject Historic sites.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this move, simply because they really aren't NR-related in any way. While they work with historic preservation and other heritage conservation causes, they're definitely not affiliates of the National Register, and they don't work closely with it at all, judging (1) by what I've read, and (2) what I heard in a presentation last week by the CEO of the Rivers of Steel NHA. They're really not a type of protected area either; I'd suggest that only the historic sites project really should be related. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
As the person who added the tags, I'll note the Journey Through Hallowed Ground discussion above, where "related" tags were floated as a way of linking, in a very general way, to the project. The NHA program is very much an NPS project [1], though individual NHA's may have more or less participation, and nearly all of them lean heavily on NRHP properties in their management plans and promotional materials. However, it's roughly as clear-cut as their status as "protected areas", since many aren't protected in any real sense. An NHA, as I've mentioned [2] in a query concerning that categorization, is more of a cooperative marketing association than any kind of park, protected area or giant historic district. As such, I'm damned if I know how to approach categorization, project tags (WikiProject Advertising?), etc. A few really are protected areas, others overlap with historic districts, some are economic development projects, and some are just window-dressing: does the entire state of Tennessee need to be designated "Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area?" Acroterion(talk)12:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize I had contributed in the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area discussion above. I believe my reasoning above was based on the fact that the JTHG NHA included many places on the NRHP, kind of like us tagging a university article encompassing several NRHP-listed buildings. Yes, most of the NHAs contain many NRHP sites, but unlike the university example, the National Heritage Area is not a pre-existing unifying factor. Most buildings on a university campus are historic precisely because they are a part of the university.. the buildings would be irrelevant without the university (and thus, often there are not individual articles about the historic buildings but one large university article). With these NHAs, it's like they're going backwards: History was made, then the historic things were nominally grouped together. This sounds kind of like a historic district, but even with most HDs there is some unifying idea like the history of a certain town or the like (and again, this sometimes leads to historic district articles being merged into city/neighborhood articles).
I feel like in this case there isn't really enough cohesiveness among the constituents of the NHAs to justify an NRHP tag. Each listing will probably warrant its own article (there's no way the thousands of places in the JTHG NHA are going to be covered in a single article), and I feel that is where our project banner should go.. not on the NHA article. If a banner is placed on these NHA articles, I can see the same reasoning being used to tag city articles or even whole states.. hell why not just tag History of the United States while you're at it too? In light of this new line of reasoning, I feel I have to flip flop. If anything, I feel that this may go under WP:PAREAS (which deals more with NPS sites than NRHPs). But then again as Nyttend says above, they're not really "protected", so I don't see a place for them haha. I lean more towards HSITES than anything else, though... unless anyone else has a better idea.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Effectively, an NHA is just a branding campaign sporting an NPS arrowhead in some cases. You see what I mean: where does one stop? I'm fine with removing or rerranging project tags: HISTSITES might be a good idea. As for categories, I've generally tried to add categories for places that are specifically listed in the management plans or websites for NHAs and stop right there. Other folks have placed additional categories that I don't necessarily agree with, but I figured I'd go back and reconsider it all once I'd completed articles for all the present NHAs. Acroterion(talk)14:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a field to {{Infobox NRHP}} for "website"? I'm seeing that restored properties *not* on NRHP have the site's own webpage in the infobox (for instance, Boots Motel) because they're using {{infobox hotel}} but NRHP-listed properties which are part of the same attempt to bring back historic U.S. Route 66 (such as Blue Swallow Motel and Wagon Wheel Motel) have {{infobox NRHP}} and that has no space |website= in which to put this info, short of attempting to combine two infoboxes in some unwieldly manner. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
PS: I'd argue that this solution is preferable, as there are some important parameters specific to each of the infoboxes that don't need to be in the other, in general, and embedding allows all parameters of each to be used. Andrew Jameson (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks like your change to Blue Swallow Motel works reasonably well, although I did remove "name=" in the NRHP section as using both this and "hotel_name=" in the hotel/motel section gives duplicate info in the box. One thing on which I'm not certain: does the move to delete{{infobox hotel}} and merge to {{infobox building}} risk breaking anything in the combined/embedded template structure? The "embed=" approach does depend on knowing which is the last field in the main infobox. I've applied the change to Wagon Wheel Motel as it seems the best solution at the moment to get the "website=" and "number_of_rooms=" fields... *fingers crossed* :) 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "knowing which is the last field in the main infobox"--you should be able to just plunk the embedded NRHP infobox at the end of the hotel infbox. And although the NRHP "name" and "hotel name" parameters are sort of redundant, I tend to leave the NRHP "name" in, because some properties are listed under a different name than the one it's presently known as. Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I cannnot explain the coding issues, but Fenway Park gives the example. The edit prior to mine has the "tenants" below the date added to the NRHP. Moving the NRHP infobox beneath the list of tenants puts it by itself. The information in the infobox appears to be in any order. If it is there more than once, the last one takes precedence. This can elimate references attached to the first entry. This has stumped me more than once. Maybe someone with coding experience can give more details. KudzuVine (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Basically, what this "embedding" is doing is taking the {{infobox NRHP}} and inserting it (minus the outer frame) into one of the individual fields in the other template. In {{infobox stadium}} the last few fields in the template are "tenants", "embedded" and "website" (it doesn't matter whether they're in that order in the article's page... the order in the template has "tenants" near the end so anything which appears under "tenants" is going to end up near the bottom of this box. If the field which appears before {{infobox NRHP}} is "dimensions" (as it was before you edited the page)? The entire NRHP section gets stuffed into the middle of the stadium infobox, directly under the "dimensions" field. (oops!) Unfortunately, "dimensions" appears before "acreage", "volume", "tenants"... so that puts the NRHP section near but not at the end - awkwardly. Hence the need for "knowing which is the last field in the main infobox" so that the embedded NRHP template can be put underneath that field's data. As {{infobox stadium}} contains a field "|embedded=" at the end which is specifically intended to hold {{infobox NRHP}} or one other (according to the template's documentation) then "|embedded={{infobox NRHP}}" with the data should work in {{infobox stadium}}. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
NRHP Cemetery article traffic
You folks might be able to dig something up on this - which cemeteries get the most article traffic?
So far I've only thought of 4 - well just thought of a couple more
Arlington National Cemetery 106,514 last 90 days (1 183 / day)
Congressional Cemetery 14,884 last 90 days (165 / day)
Sleepy Hollow Cemetery (NY) 10,845 “ (121 / day)
Graceland Cemetery (Chicago) 8,461 “ ( 97 / day)
Gettysburg National Cemetery 8,258 “ ( 92 / day)
Laurel Hill Cemetery (Philly) 5,097 “ ( 57 / day)
Not of life-or-death importance, but I'm sure you stiffs can suggest a few more :-).
This page lists Hollywood Forever Cemetery at 395/day as the most viewed cemetery article under our scope (Arlington is actually not itself on the NRHP, thought it may contain several sites.. I didn't do much research). Woodlawn Cemetery (Bronx) is next with 245/day... then Congressional (though that figure says it's 175/day... then Green-Wood Cemetery with 170/day.. etc. All the others you mentioned didn't make the top 500 cutoff of that list.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The page provides entries for 181 listings (or at least Microsoft Word tells me that there are 181 copies of the [ character) on the whole page, out of 798 and 728 listings for Vermont and New Hampshire respectively statewide. Nyttend (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
This is correct, it is only a (minor) selection of listings. The point is that at least for Vermont I do not see these entries available elsewhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
DC fully illustrated, QR codes
We got a couple of pix for the Traveling Carousel which is assembled only 1 weekend per year, so it appears that finally the DC lists are fully illustrated. I'll note that a retired editor User:AgnosticPreachersKid was probably the leading contributor; and User:Farragutful and User:Slowking4 were in the top 3 contributors.
Re: the cemetery info I asked for above. It was part of my informal presentation to the manager at the Congressional Cemetery asking for permission to post QR codes there. There will be a 1 month trial for the codes that connect to the articles on some CC "residents" (loosely speaking), John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Owen Lovejoy, Leonard Matlovich and Tom Lantos. If you are in DC, please go scan the codes with your smartphone to get the articles and see how it works. (They will be checking stats before deciding whether they want to go with 50 or more QR codes posted). There are some pix at WT:QR.
I'd guess there are some other uses for QR codes (indoors or out) for NRHP properties. Any questions just ask me, or maybe check out what WP:Monmouthpedia is doing. Smallbones (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Short stubs
Alright guys, I've been letting several ultra-short stubs (mostly in Texas, so probably created by this same editor) pass as I have been adding project tags periodically, but THIS is just ridiculous. Can we at least have SOME standard? I understand that not everyone wants to do detailed research (e.g. emailing the NPS if necessary), and many are just creating articles to make redlinks turn blue, but heck, people, at least put SOME effort into it. I propose a minimum standard of what User:Pubdog frequently puts out–a recent example is Dawesfield–which at least includes some explanation as to WHY the place is historic and not just "____ is a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places" or, as in the Burk Burnett Building example, absolutely no text whatsoever. I would like to commend Pubdog on his work for this project, and I note that his name has never come up (in a negative light) in one of these discussions. Another user who frequently puts out commendable work is User:Andrew Jameson in Michigan–a recent example of which is Fort Drummond (Drummond Island, Michigan). Even what User:Farragutful creates in batches (e.g. North Fellows Historic District) is acceptable.. one ounce of research is all that's required.. just something. Is that too much to ask?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
May be somebody could just talk to the user in a friendly way, this seems to be not the only their article of a similar informative structure. As for the article, I will take care of it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Ymblanter. You have to understand that folks get into these things gradually and learn as they go. Please don't bite the newbies. And don't forget "Different Strokes for Different Folks". But you do have a point. I hope I've helped you make the point by editing out some possibly offensive language (revert if you disagree) in your note. Also I don't think I'd ever mention Pubdog, Farragutful, or Andrew Jameson in the same sentence as "minimum standard" or "even what." They do outstanding work - sometimes with some beautiful detailed work, sometimes with just getting articles started. All the best, Smallbones (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The reason I mentioned these three editors is precisely because I think their work is commendable. My point was that these three create tons of articles all the time, and no one has ever chastized them for doing so, including me. This is because theirs is quality work; they actually put something into it. I'm saying others should do the same. I see now that Ymblanter has expanded the Burk Burnett Building article, a feat that took all of 10 minutes, and it is now definitely an acceptable stub that at least mentions the building's history. By no means is it a masterpiece, but no one is asking for that. What I'm suggesting is that for new people that create sub-stubs, we have a project-wide consensus on what a minimum standard should be, and that we be able to effectively and politely suggest they follow it. I believe at least mentioning why the building/site is historic should be part of that standard.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
An explanation of why the site is historic and notable.
Information from and a link to at least one other source besides the {{NRISref}} (NRHP nomination, third party source, etc.)
Please add other minimum requirements, but if we make it too strong, we'll drive away many newbies who could learn to do a good job (and I'll have to revise too many of my articles!) As a minimum for us, let's gently explain the requirements to folks who don't meet them. Smallbones (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
How about instead of minimum standards, we recruit some project members that are willing to focus on expanding the super short stubs. I can't match the volume of some of you, but I would be willing to help in that area. Is there anyone in the group who can write a script to identify the real short pages? Those willing to help could focus their attention on those pages on the list. Lastly, nice work Ymblanter on the Burk Burnett Building page. This is a great example of what we can accomplish with a little effort. HornColumbiatalk01:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
How about we do both? I'm about to finish my degree in a few days, and I'll be free basically all summer (travelling/visiting with family/hanging out, but no work or research any more). I could possibly expand some in Mississippi or Alabama. I still think a minimum standard should be developed, though. These conversations happen way too often. Maybe we could make like a boilerplate text to copy onto the new (or old) user's talk page when articles like this are spotted?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind comments about my contributions. I basically follow the three minimum requirements identified by User:Smallbones. I also add a link to the NRHP nomination form, or other sources, as a minimum part of the stub.--Pubdog (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
We might think of putting this in a box or template, which will very gently inform the editor that we think there is a problem, and that he can go to the poster or here (WT:NRHP) for help or discussion. Of course, sometimes any box or template is viewed as "user unfriendly" or biting the newbies, so maybe just a gentle note from the WP:NRHP member. In any case, we should save this somewhere, adjust it as needed (without instruction creep) and not simply link to it when we see a problem. Smallbones (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
NHLs and Category:All NRHP articles with dead external links
1. NHL Writeups: (nr.nps.gov/writeups/XXXXXXXX.nl.pdf). Using the Wayback Machine - NHL Writeup, these are very brief summaries in a few sentences to a paragraph. I speculate that much of this information can be found in the NHL nomination at http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NHLS/Text/XXXXXXXX.pdf. One may find the exact reference with the Wayback Machine, but if the information is in the nomination and the nomination is available, I would go with that. Does anyone have a different opinion?
2. NHL Red Book: (nr.nps.gov/red+books/XXXXXXXX.red.pdf) Using the Wayback Machine - NHL Red Book, these are similar short descriptions of the NHL. These look like the information in those in The National Parks: Index 2009–2011 which is known by the name "Red Book." If the NHL/NHRP is a national park, the same information could be in this source, which will probably become an NPS deadlink in several years. Again, I speculate the specific fact can generally be found in the nomination. If it is in the nomination and the nomination is available, I would go with that. Does anyone have a different opinion?
3. Some fact from an search or other report from an nps.gov source: These may be NHLs or NRHPs, or a list. The fact may be found with the Wayback Machine or a web search that finds the same information. Does anyone have a different opinion?
Most of these NHLs/NRHPs do not reference the nomination. Since this is the source for much information in the article, I think we should add them when available. In my opinion, there is little need to reference another source written from the nomination if the nomination is online.
I am not familiar with these NHLs/NRHPs in general. If you are knowledgeable, please proceed to fix the deadlinks.
Switched link to weekly listing page at NRHP website. Plus added NRHP registration form link to the building's article. 25or6to4 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The station was listed on July 22, 2011. That is too recent for the NRIS database to have a full record of the property. I forget the specific date, but I think Elkman's tool is only good for places listed up until mid/late 2010 or so. The infobox for this station must be built manually, using sources other than the NRIS. If you don't feel like doing that yourself, you could just stick a |needs-infobox=yes in the project banner on the talk page, and someone will likely get around to it soon.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Minimal nrhp infobox put at the bottom. I could not successfully embed. 15:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The Station infobox doesn't seem to like getting other infoboxes embedded in it. The only other things I could think of would be leaving the infoboxes separate (like they are) or embedding the station infobox in the NRHP infobox, both of which don't sound too great. Chevsapher (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure of that, since I've embedded plenty of station and NRHP infoboxes into each other, and there's one right next to it in Scarsdale (Metro-North station) that I can use an add the proper parameters to. In fact, the existing tips Andrew has given me have been quite helpful so far. ----DanTD (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW, the NYSPRHP link claims it was built in 1914, while everyone else claims it was built in 1915. And I'm going to post the new infobox this morning. ----DanTD (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
i found that both these pages have NRHP infoboxes and both on the the historic district. I marked them for merger. It would seem best that a knowledgeable editor do the job. Any takers from that area? KudzuVine (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
NPS itineraries
There's a list of various "itineraries" on [3] which are pre-selected sets of notable NRHP sites around a specific theme (such as a mobilisation for war, the underground railroad, or the old US 66 road). These seem to identify sites for which there actually is reliable info (NPS provides one page of description for each historic place on the list, usually citing whatever documentation was used to get the site listed) and which may be important enough to deserve an article here if we don't already have one. For instance, the US66 itinerary does not list absolutely everything in every county on this eight-state road (as our existing county-level lists would), but selects just a hundred or so key landmarks out of this huge set. As such, these sort of "itinerary" lists would make a handy checklist of NRHS articles which should likely be created because they had to have WP:RS and notability to even be on these pages.
Would it be worth importing the rest of these itinerary lists in some wikified form so that they could be used as a possible list of requested NRHP articles? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Any source of info is welcome. I took a look and even noticed one NPS photo of a Florida shipwreck, which could be useful. Some of this is related to the National Historic Areas discussion above - some entries fit into both groups. Of course all NRHP sites have to have some notability to become NRHP listed. The extra source is ok, but I do wish that all nomination forms were just made available directly by the NRHP. If you want to try, perhaps you could try to get a group of editors to work together on making sure the all Hwy 66 entires have articles, and then move on to the next itinerary. A year or so ago, somebody started a Black Historic Places list based on one of these itineraries and it's reasonably complete. I'm not sure what "importing the rest of these itinerary lists" means - a separate article or list for each? It might work for some, but not for others, e.g. there are Washington and Baltimore itineraries, but our county lists are already more complete. All the best. Smallbones (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Also useful would be the photos of Florida shipwrecks credited as works of the Florida Division of Historical Resources; they'd qualify as {{PD-FLGov}}. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I was looking at this initially not as a list article in mainspace but as merely a tool, like Wikipedia:Requested articles, for identifying areas where our coverage is badly incomplete. In mainspace, U. S. Route 66 in Illinois#Structures and Historic and Architectural Resources of Route 66 Through Illinois already take the statewide multiple property submission as a list (admittedly, we don't have this for all states or all NPS itinerary topics - some of the state-level '66' articles are just redirects to same-numbered state highways or state-level Interstate 40 pages) and the individual city itineraries would overlap the county lists. I look at the 66 itinerary and see we have fairly good coverage of Illinois but that it's downhill from there, with all but four or five Oklahoma sites like this one as redlinks. The idea isn't to find every site that lacks an encyclopaedia article (that would be a huge list, as most of the county lists have more red than blue links, and not terribly useful) as this needs to be narrowed down to the ones most in need of article creation. We'll never have an article on absolutely every site on the register.
Oddly, the one-page descriptions for the individual sites on the itineraries are not consistent as to whether the nomination form is linked. Most do not. A few of the highway landmark pages (particularly '66' in Illinois) have a "plan your visit" box at the end of the description with this external link, but on any other itinerary (such as the individual city itineraries, underground railroad and the like) there's nothing. The pages (like [4]) that have the nomination form links are few and rare exceptions to a pattern of not including them in the itineraries.
66.102.83.61 (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I did try creating U. S. Route 66 in Oklahoma#Structures by taking the listed itinerary sites within the one state, adding a sentence or two of description for each (summarised from the one-page individual descriptions in the itinerary), sorting them by type (museums, parks, motel and restaurant, fuel...) and stringing them together as paragraph text instead of a list. The result is a passable general overview of one region, albeit with red links where we lack individual site articles.
One thing to watch, though... the descriptions are not always neutral in that they may omit key data. I've only spotted one instance so far, Meramec River U.S. 66 Bridge - J421 is part of a Route 66 State Park (and should redirect there) in what was Times Beach, Missouri. It is profiled on the itinerary here. Up to "Times Beach incorporated in 1954, and the state added an auxiliary bridge for eastbound traffic two years later. By the late 1960s, construction of Interstate 44 had begun..." this looks reasonable, but then the piece omits some rather key facts as to what happened to the town of Times Beach, Missouri (and its structures) or why. Minor details? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Pet cemeteries on the Register?
New York has its latest list of nominations the state Historic Preservation Board will be considering up, and one of them is (I kid you not) Hartsdale Pet Cemetery. According to the nomination, it is:
nationally significant as a rare and outstanding example of funerary landscape architecture dedicated to the practice of burying animals and as one of the cornerstone institutions of the American humane movement. Founded in 1896, it was the first planned rural cemetery for pets in the United States, and is the oldest continuously operated commercial burial ground for animals in the Western world. (p. 23)
I smell a future NHL nomination coming out of those last two claims, but for now it's just aimed at the Register. So ... does anyone know of any other pet cemeteries listed on the Register? (And I mean totally devoted to pets, not a people cemetery where someone got their dog buried next to them). I don't see this getting listed until late this year at the earliest, but if I'm able to go down there and get a photo or three it would make a great DYK for when it is listed to say it's the first pet cemetery to be listed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
On the NRHP nomination form, fourth page, section eleven indicates who prepared the nomination. The cemetery appears to have been nominated by someone from the church itself. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
What's annoying is that Commons admins don't seem to get it with nomination forms being copyrighted by their writers. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Should historic places on the New Mexico State Register of Cultural Properties have a banner added to the NRHP infobox? I did this for a few articles (e.g. De Anza Motor Lodge), under the reasoning that other state registers have their own banners. However, every NRHP property in New Mexico is also listed on the state register, so this could be seen as redundant. Since I can't make up my mind either way, I thought I'd toss the question here and see what people think. Camerafiend (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The same is true in New Jersey; all NR-listed sites are on the NJ Register of Historic Places. I just checked ten random properties: while some of its properties have an extra banner for NJRHP listing, several don't, and that (plus the redundancy issue) is a good reason to say that a banner in the NM situation wouldn't be necessary or very helpful. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Now that I look at the page, I'm going to reverse myself. Judging by your writing, I thought you meant that it was added to the NM register because it made it to the NR, and since I'd not looked at the article, I didn't realise that I misunderstood. Because it was state-desigated first, I think we're in a different situation here, and the extra banner seems appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they are added to the state register first as a prerequisite. It often takes a few years for SR properties to be listed on the NR, and a lot of them never are. This was my original reasoning in favor of adding the state banner. But then I wondered if the banner was really a good idea given that it would appear in 100% of NM NRHP articles, and few if any of the SR-only properties are likely to meet the GNG. Camerafiend (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, then I'll reverse myself again and oppose its inclusion. Imagined that it was like here in Indiana, where it's automatic but where state-only designation is rather rare and sometimes the result of an owner objection or other problems with an attempted NR listing. Nyttend (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I feel better about my own waffling now, it seems there is no decisive answer to be had here. Since we seem to be marginally in favor of not using the banner, I'll remove it from the few articles that have it. If anyone down the road puts forth a compelling argument for putting it back in, I won't object to that either. Thanks to both of you for the input. Camerafiend (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States Sept 1-30
The Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest will run for the first time in the US Sept. 1-30. There are several things you can do if you are interested in helping out, mainly for now sign up at Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States and give your views to make sure WP:NRHP is heard on this.
There will be at least one change to our county tables. The first, I think everybody will like once they get used to it and will probably want to continue it after the contest. The others are just suggestions - if we're going to change the tables we might as well consider other possibilities now as well.
A button can be added in the photo column for those sites without photos. Click the button, and you go to the upload wizard on Commons. The one for use during the contest will have a contest category already entered, for after the contest, I'm sure we can nix that feature. I think this is a User:Multichill invention and works just as well as his other inovations.
This is not strictly needed for the contest - but the registration number is required to be entered in the contest upload form. For at least the contest period we should have this expressed in the table - the number is already entered in the table, it just doesn't show up now.
Switch to decimal coordinates - when we last changed the Table format the numbers in the table were changed to decimals, but the are still expressed in the table as degrees-minutes-seconds. I suggest we change to fully decimal. This would help in the usual upload process - where decimal coords are easier to enter. The only thing I'd ask is that only 4 or 5 places after the decimal point be expressed. If you want to hit a statue right on the head, 5 places is enough - we usually don't have to be that accurate, and it's false precision to suggest that the numbers converted from DMS to decimal are that accurate.
There are folks who would like to make this contest REALLY BIG - for example the Washington, DC chapter is set to do multiple programs, involving multiple meetups, translation edit-a-thons, QR codes, etc. I don't think we should say no to all these things, but I want to insure that the values of WP:NRHP come through in the contest as well.
Please, no, on decimal coords. DMS is much more standard (where except online do you ever see decimal?), and the table coding is problematic anyway. There are many sites for which forcing rounding to a second is too much rounding. See the Wabash County, Indiana list, where at least one building has decimal coords for something like half a second because the building is too narrow — one full second is a couple of buildings south, and the next north full second is the next (also NR-listed) building to the north. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Roann IN Library Ok forget about suggestions 2 and 3 since they've already been taken care of in an elegant way, or are really irrelevant to WLM-US. I do want to quibble with Nyttend about decimal coords and false precision. DMS strikes me as being as clumsy as the UK's old pound-shilling-penny system (24 pence to a shilling, 20 shillings to a pound - if I remember correctly). Who wants to use such a system in a digital world? I also want to underline my point on the accuracy needed (and implied) on our pages. I couldn't find Nyttend's Wabash County example, but am using the Roann Library as an example. It's a square building about 3-4 car lengths on a side. Half a second on either side of our coords is just off each side of the building (our coords are in the center). 0.00001 degree on either side of our coords are both on the flat spot in the center of the roof, no more than a car length apart. See why we don't need to be more precise than that? We also don't want to be more precise, because the people who originally came up with the coords were not measuring to the foot, and we'd by misleading folks to suggest that the were. Smallbones (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The issue in Wabash County is the Solomon Wilson Building. Select "Map of all coordinates from Google" and look at the site on satellite view — the building's current non-fractional coords are in the middle of the street, and just one second to the south is the NR-listed James M. Amoss Building. There's no way to force the table to display coords with half a second. What's more, you mustn't consider only buildings, as plenty of smaller things are listed; consider the Confederate Memorial in Nicholasville, Kentucky, for an example. Right now it's listed as being at 37°52′51″N84°34′24″W / 37.88083°N 84.57333°W / 37.88083; -84.57333, on top of the adjacent courthouse and northwest of the memorial. If you adjust the coords a second to the southeast, 37°52′50″N84°34′23″W / 37.88056°N 84.57306°W / 37.88056; -84.57306, you end up in the middle of the street. With such small objects, we really do need to be more precise, and sometimes we need to be more precise than a foot. Let me remind you — aside from webpages, where do you see decimal coordinates? We're building a website that follows established practices, not fly-by-night ideas such as the abolition of minutes and seconds. Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Part of the problem may be that Google is just not that accurate 37°52′50″N84°34′23″W / 37.88056°N 84.57317°W / 37.88056; -84.57317 puts the green arrow right on the head of the reb from the overhead view, but by street view seems to put the red marker about 5 feet behind the statue. So how are we determining these coordinates - by the NRHP nomination coords (a reliable source), with occasional obvious corrections, or by Google, which can also be off a bit? Five decimal digits are fine with me, and I see no reason to argue with Cro-magnon methods. :-) Smallbones (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd love to participate, but I don't know if I'm going to be able to make it back up to Long Island this summer. In the event that I can't, I've got a list of sites that could use some pictures, not all of which are listed on NRHP, though. ----DanTD (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Under water list improvements
Some time ago I improved the monuments bot to be able setting default fields. What it means that if it encounters a header template it will remembers and fields set there. If a row template doesn't have a field it will fall back to this default. Take for example the county field. It's now set in each row, but not shown to the user anyway. So for example this edit won't change anything from a readers point of view and the database will still contain the right county for all the listings. This is convient to decrease the size of lists.
Another thing I would like to add is a state iso code. This would be added to the header and invisible to the user. This makes it easier to make per state statistics and country -> state -> county navigation in the upcoming mobile app. Multichill (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Nice idea; thank you. I never understood why we included the county name for each entry. Any chance that you could change the nocity option so that it works with a single addition of code to the header? You'd save a lot of list space if you could use a single edit to the header to get rid of 218 instances of "|nocity=1" from National Register of Historic Places listings in Cleveland, Ohio. Final question — what do you mean by "under water"? Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Certainly that you won't see it unless you look under the surface, i.e. into the article's source text. ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, these edits don't make me happy at all: [6][7]. We could add gazillions of bells and whistles, I don't think we should add this one. Multichill (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
NRHP row template
As implemented, the {{NRHP row}} template lacks any means to pass coordinates parameters (such as a region code) to the {{Coord}} template. I noticed that the {{NRHP row}} documentation used to describe a "state_iso" parameter, but when I looked at the template code, it was unimplemented. I implemented it, but was reverted. —Stepheng3 (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like some help tracking down some freely licensed/PD images of the Sackville House, which was demolished in the 1980s. We have a free photo of the former location and a non-free photo from the 1980s, but nothing freely licensed of the building itself. Any help is appreciated.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you know the PA CGRIS system? Try going to https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/ce/Application/ASP/Query/Wizard.asp and use a PC if possible, the site gives my mac all sorts of problems. You'd have to search for Washington county, Washington City, and demolished. For some reason you can't link to the photos there. If there is a photo there, chances are that it would be considered to be copyrighted, but it might be a better pic. I'm not sure if having 2 unfree photos available is better than having one only. Somehow I imagine some copyright freak arguing that if there is another unfree photo available, you can't use the first one because there's an alternative. But if you can't use the first one, you also can't use the 2nd one by a similar argument. And then where would you be? Catch - 22. I know that argument doesn't make much sense, but ... Smallbones (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Photos can be linked, just like nominations — load the image, right click it, select properties (at least in IE), and the resulting window will include the page's URL. This doesn't work with PDFs, but the window title contains the entire URL of the PDF. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The most direct way is to put in the refnum (such as from NRHP.com). Otherwise, you must guess the NRHP name and mark the "delisted box" and preferable put in the state abbreviation. But if the name chosen is not the NRHP name, it may not get to the listing. KudzuVine (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I got the infobox, and they're calling it the generic name Atlantic Coast Line Depot. NRHP.com also has the name Florence Passenger Station. On the other hand, I was able to check NRHP's listings of Florence, South Carolina, and neither name showed up. ----DanTD (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I expanded that article in the German Wikipedia recently, using the NRHP nom form. Is anyone interested in doing the same here? If you give me a note by wikimail I can forward the PDF to you. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so this is totally optional ... some people enjoy taking articles to FAC, other people enjoy ignoring FAC :) To bottom-line it: FAC is more pleasant than it used to be, and I'm looking for a new wikiproject or two to help with copyediting issues, if people are interested in pushing articles through FAC. You might or might not want to set up an A-class process to help establish consensus within your project on a variety of issues before you take articles to FAC ... or, if there aren't a lot of issues to settle, you may not need an A-class process. Thoughts? If there are only two or three people interested, then it might be more efficient for me and others just to help you directly, rather than aiming our help at the whole project. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about other people in the project, but Ruhrfisch is a veteran of the FA process. I myself am not, having done nothing more than two GAs. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Infobox NRHP/testcases
Is there a work-around so that this will not be flagged for needing an NRHP infobox. I tried "needs-infobox=no" on its talk page with little hope that it would work. It didn't. KudzuVine (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not flagged as needing an NRHP infobox; it's flagged as having an infobox that needs cleanup. This is due to a recent implementation of some test code in the sandbox (See #Relevant catgories? above) which may be fixed later. For now, the error category can simply be overlooked. Sorry for the confusion.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG)