Share to: share facebook share twitter share wa share telegram print page

User talk:Dudemanfellabra/Archive 3

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Can you help?

Regarding this edit of yours ([1])

Can you run trough other lists that are on that page also to check for the same style errors? I will be forever thankful, and i will be so happy, as i an founder of that wikiproject, so i want to make it even better. All best to you! :)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cultural Property of Great Importance

--Tadija (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

this one, to {{NMI list item}}.

Very quick work. You got to it before I did, even tho I was the one who already knew how the template works. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha you're welcome. I've coded quite a few templates, so I can normally pick up on the code pretty fast.. Is there a reason you did the {{PAGENAME}} method instead of just <includeonly></includeonly>? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. The <includeonly></includeonly> stuff gets parsed rather than transcluded, so it wouldn't have worked. I asked for advice at WP:VPT, and the {{PAGENAME}} method seemed like the least worst option (see the thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Transcluding_includeonly). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Hansen Planetarium photo

Yes, Utahn is Utah's demonym. And here's the photo. Ntsimp (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome photo! Thanks for your help. Also, if you could reply at WT:NRHP that would be great.. I like Old Hansen Planetarium better than Hansen Planetarium. What are your thoughts? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Old Hansen Planetarium

Updated DYK query On March 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Old Hansen Planetarium, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unaltered Example

[2]

Here's an example where the line break is most likely caused by the template. Do you have any thoughts?174.3.123.220 (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a line break that isn't there on every single other article on Wikipedia. There is a line break above the hatnote, yes, but that's there even when the hatnote is not. There is always a single line break at the top of the article on every single article on Wikipedia. There is nothing this infobox can do about it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I changed the example for the time being (see the edit summary). Here is the version with the big swath of white space. And it still uses the template in question [3].174.3.123.220 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Then why is the name of this section Unaltered example? The line in question is there because of the line break in the page coding.. not the template. When you took the line out, it fixed the problem. The line shouldn't be there in the first place. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

pages

I ask here so as not to continue going off-topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/to do‎. Thanks for explaining where you are coming from in that discussion, that you have a personal preference not to create pages. I don't exactly understand why it would be your general preference, but it is helpful at least that you explain that is your general preference.

In passing, though, you stated to me: "You, on the other hand, have created hundreds of pages (many of which are now obsolete and should be deleted.. which I will get around to sooner or later) since I've been on Wikipedia." What are you referring to? --doncram (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It is my preference not to create new pages so as not to clutter up Wikipedia. This long list of WP:NRHP subpages is an example of way too much crap that's been created that is completely unnecessary now. This could have all been done in a user sandbox and replaced by the next project when it was finished in my opinion. I know you didn't create all those pages, and I don't have any specific examples right now, but I've seen you make new subpages that are used once and then they just sit there. I think that can be done in a user sandbox. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the link. How do you generate that?
You're right that i did not create all of them. To respond a bit defensively, I did not create / am not much associated with most of them, and most of the ones i created are very valuable and still needed.
Please don't blame me for the fact that there are many state-specific subpages of "NRIS info issues"; those were split out by another editor and the split in fact disrupted sorting work that i was doing, prior to a needed split. The main NRIS issues list was growing too large, but I wanted to / would have just split it into 2.
As you may recall from your work on one Mississippi NHL, I did create the series of NHL sandbox ones, the ones named "WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NHLsandbox13", etc., when noms for a bunch of NHLs were released, with intention those would be developed and moved to mainspace upon NHL designation. That was a oneshot event, and I would not do it the same again. I agree those should be cleaned out, and have them on my personal to-do list visible at my own Talk page, and I have recently cleared one or a few of those. (Note there is cross-checking remaining to do on the others and they should not be deleted abruptly.)
Otherwise i don't notice any of mine that should be addressed. I don't happen to see, immediately, any one-time work pages that I have created. I did instigate a few cleanup drives though so probably there are some remains of those. I don't know what is proper to do about them. Not sure if they should be deleted, because it wipes out a history of collaborative effort.
Lastly, about whether having pages around is a problem, I am not sure. I believe that the official policy/advice is that we should not worry about performance and space type issues in our editing. I don't know if anyone else is botherered, or why they should be, especially if, like me, they can't find them. :) --doncram (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
This list shows all the pages you've created in WP-space. I won't go through all of them in detail, but it is my belief that half of these are pointless and could have been done in a user sandbox. That's just how I work.. I keep things to a minimum whenever I can. I know you work differently, and there may be a million other editors that work exactly the same as you.. but I don't. I was simply expressing my opinion of your editing style – I don't agree with it. I am by no means condemning you or saying your work is less important or worse than mine, but I just wouldn't do it the same as you. That's all. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that link, and for your clarification here. I appreciate your refinement of tone, basically, though i still bristle a little about half being "pointless". Looking at the 52 in the report, i agree about one and just requested speedy deletion. 13 others are from that oneshot set of NHL sandboxes, already discussed. About others, including reports of NRHP-listed theatres and NRHP-listed mills, have served a purpose. It would be crazy to propose deletion of the AFDs, peer and FL reviews, and WikiProject Historic sites. So i sorta agree, halfway with you, i.e. that half of half of the WikiProject space articles i created and which still exist, no longer are really needed. Like i said, i will close those NHL sandbox ones sometime, when i have cross-checked them vs. the mainspace articles on their topics. Regards. --doncram (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I've now nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/coords and its subpages for deletion; see here. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I have commented in that Miscellany for deletion discussion, thanks!
I also just marked Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Blue link check as an {{archive}} and added an entry for it into the archive list that appears near the top of the WikiProject NRHP talk page. I think that's the right treatment for a work page that has served its purpose of coordination a lot of collaborative work, now complete. It seems to me fine and good to mark it as an archive, which posts a notice saying further discussion should be at the Wikiproject's talk page, and to add it to the index of archives. There are two other WikiProject workpages already archived and indexed, one being about the NRHP2 infobox cleanup and one being about designing the NRHP list-tables (which was really just a forked off continuation of discussion at the Talk page itself). So I think this is the right treatment for old work pages, at least for ones that show a history of collaborative effort. I am not opposing deletion of the coords ones, because those do not show a history of collaborative effort, they just show a one-time idea for organizing work which was not actually followed. About the sandbox drafts for the 13 NHL pages, if there is a useful history in one of them it could be moved to be subpage of the Talk page of the actual article about the NHL, perhaps, in the same spirit. I am not saying all draft work needs to be saved, but it's just a possible way of archiving stuff that is deemed worth saving. --doncram (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Lauderdale County, Mississippi

Saw your comment about the destroyed properties; thanks. I was curious about the Lauderdale County list, however — why couldn't you just get photos of the sites where the buildings were once located? I've done this with the list for National Register of Historic Places listings in Shelby County, Ohio, which includes four different destroyed properties. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I mean I could take pictures of the sites, but I don't really see how that illustrates the NRHP in any way. I took a picture of the site of the Meridian Baptist Seminary for that article, but that was destroyed by a fire, so some stuff was still left at the site. For most of the other non-photographed sites on the list, there is nothing but a grass field. I would rather obtain a historical image of the site somehow. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Meridian (Amtrak station)

Just fyi, you should be able to move Meridian (Amtrak station) over the redirect yourself, if you want to, since there's only one edit at the redirect. It's only when there are two or more edits that you need an admin. Station1 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks! I didn't know I could do that. I had run into problems before trying to move something over a redirect, but I wasn't aware of this exemption. Thanks for clarifying! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

NRHP infobox - landmarks colors

In the NRHP infobox, there are separate colors for the state and local landmarks. I was wondering if the state landmarks can be different colors appropriate for the state themselves. For example, the California Historical Landmarks are a golden color (#ffc94b) for the Golden State. Perhaps Washington State's landmarks (if there are any) can be a dark green for the Evergreen State. Nevada can be a silvery gray for the Silver State. Florida can be a yellow (Sunshine State) New York a royal blue or purple (Empire State) and so on. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There is actually no standard color for any of these states; the color is supplied on the page itself in the "designated_other1_color" parameter. Basically you can make any local designation in any infobox any color you please. To avoid confusion, however, perhaps we should come up with a list of "suggested" colors for different designations that may be used by this infobox. Something like that which is found at Template:Designation. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Congregation Beth Israel (Meridian, Mississippi)

I just noticed Congregation Beth Israel (Meridian, Mississippi). Nice article! Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Gracias. You noticed that fast haha.. I just moved the info from user space. I'm guessing you had Beth Israel on your watchlist?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you're playing in my backyard. :-) Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

D.C. Historic Sites

While watching for broken infoboxes (I've rigged the bright orange "new messages" banner to display when there is one), the United States Botanic Garden came up. It doesn't appear to be on the NRHP and I was going to replace the infobox with an "Historic sites" one, but it does have a local D.C. designation. I don't know if you wanted to set up the new designation, or not. I did find an inventory list to go with it, however.[4]. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

disambig

I did appreciate that you revised two out of the >3,000 disambiguation pages having NRHP entries, toward meeting current standards. I just further noticed you revised the Depot Historic District dab in this edit, to change the entry for one Mississippi place. You do realize that the entry is not formed properly according to current practice (it was okay in 2009 by the rules then, when i created it). So it and others on the dab page could just be deleted freely by disambiguation-focussed editors. I would certainly protest and revert. But, my point is there are thousands of these, and no one besides me fixing them and no one besides me fighting any dab editors that are being unreasonable, and then u r criticizing me there. Could you fix up this dab, for one more, to make it 3 count for you? You know, change the supporting bluelinks to be more specific to the county list-articles. It's a pain, and a waste of time as the articles will be created eventually then the bluelinks will be dropped. But I have created/fixed hundreds of dab pages to the current standards. The economical thing to do is to fight the dab editors to stop the unreasonable deletions, not fight among ourselves. I'd appreciate if you'd fix this one. --doncram (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha well my purpose in editing that dab page wasn't to clean it up, but sure I can. Just to make things clear, the entry I added was correctly formatted, right? And you want me to clean up the other entries? Oh, and btw, I've been working on the Meridian, Mississippi article recently, and I've put it up for GAN again (it failed last time because I couldn't devote the time necessary to make the changes before the "deadline" put on the first GAN). Also, Congregation Beth Israel (Meridian, Mississippi) is up for GAN, so if one or both of these pass, it will be the first time I've gotten anything greater than a DYK for an article I've written or greatly expanded haha. Exciting stuff :P. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, looking at your contribs i see you did edit some more dabs to try to fix them up. But your edits are sometimes / perhaps mostly not succeeding. In this edit of yours for the Sacred Heart Catholic Church dab, you delinked or dropped 3 supporting bluelinks where i guess articles have been created, which is fine. It doesn't hurt or help, because disambiguation editors would not have deleted those entries. You also edited the entry for Sacred Heart Catholic Church (Abilene, Texas), to be supported by [[List of RHPs in TX|listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in Texas]] which is not fine. That entry is subject to deletion-attack by unreasonable disambiguation editors, because the List of RHPs in TX article does not actually show that place. If you click on the redlink and then "What links here", you find it appears instead in National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas, Counties T-Z, a sublist. So what I would do there is go to the sublist, figure out which county it is in, and write [[National Register of Historic Places listings in Whichever County, Texas|listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in Whichever County, Texas]] instead in the dab. Then when i saved the dab i would check to see if that link shows red or blue. If it shows red then I would create a redirect from [[National Register of Historic Places listings in Whichever County, Texas]] to [[National Register of Historic Places listings in Texas, Counties T-Z#Whichever County]]. Note, in my discussion with Station1, i was offering to handle the difficult ones, if he would do the easy ones. It's not so easy to fix these, see. There are more complications that come up too, like when "What links here" shows naught, and you have to hunt down the grammar difference between the dab page entry vs. what shows in the correct NRHP list-article.
I see now you just re-edited the Depot Historic District dab to fix the first entry more properly now. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Your getting both those GAs would be great, i would be proud for you and for myself too, for the small amount of help in developing both of those i have provided, mostly indirectly. --doncram (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand that the Sacred Heart Catholic Church edit wasn't completely correct, and I understood that when I edited it. As you'll see from the rest of the edit, my main focus was removing the multiple bluelinked items. I could honestly care less about the bluelinks (I'll leave that up to you and whoever else at the dab project wants to help). The reason I even touched the first item on the page was because "NRHP" showed up on the page several times, but non-NRHP editors may not know what that means. It is common for the first abbreviation on the page to show the unabbreviated form, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, and then use the abbreviated form throughout the rest of the article, so I unabbreviated the first "NRHP" on the page, which happened to be in an improperly formatted link. I wasn't trying to fix up the dab page completely (which I know how to do), but I was only seeking to remove the multiple bluelinks and to clarify what NRHP meant.... which I successfully did. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Well, I'm disappointed. You went out of your way to undermine me in the recent discussion at WikiProject Disambiguation. It's a hell of a lot of work to fend off the unreasonable moves of disambiguation editors. You were out asserting it was so easy, telling me off that i should basically shut up and fix everything. It is not so easy, and the dab pages are basically pretty good and certainly functional, and I don't want to spend 100 hours or whatever doing that useless work either. Thanks for nothing. :( --doncram (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see their moves as unreasonable.. I actually agree with them somewhat. I think their methodology (deleting information rather than fixing it) is screwed up, but their reasoning is spot on IMO. I still assert that the work is easy.. yes, meticulous and aggravating... but still easy. It took me no longer than 2 minutes to fix the Depot page you just asked me to fix. I understand that there are a lot of dab pages, but it has to be done. Your strategy of arguing and stalling until all the articles are created simply isn't working. I, personally, could care less if the NRHP sites were disambiguated properly or not (so it wouldn't bother me as much as it does you if they deleted the entries).. I don't think it's that big of a deal. Because of this apathy, I'm not going to spend hours doing something I don't care about simply to make your job easier. You care about it; you fix it. I'll help out every now and again, but don't expect me to be your protege and fix thousands of dab articles. I'd rather spend my time on things I actually care about. Nothing against you, personally, dude, but really.. it's not that hard. Just fix them. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
"Just fix them" is glib. If you aren't willing to pitch in, in a serious way, to do the work yourself, too. You're the one now saying the work should be done, but you don't want to do it, you want me, another volunteer editor, to do it instead. If so, then don't interfere. Don't interfere with how i have been trying to manage with one after another new disambiguation-focussed editor. It's not always successful, but i have been generally working successfully to dissuade all sorts of different long-running attacks. Stay the hell out. I think i've said this to you before: don't be a jerk. --doncram (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I pitch in on work that I care about; you pitch in on work that you care about. That's how Wikipedia works. What you're asking me to do is to relieve you from doing the work you care about (because it's "too hard" for you to do) and suspend all the work I'm doing on things I care about. That is not how Wikipedia works. While by all means I could start up a drive and edit every single dab article on Wikipedia, I am by no means a jerk if I don't. I'm not the only one saying it needs to be done; everyone is. The entire WP:DAB project. If anything, they're the jerks for not helping you out when the dab pages are in their area of interest. I am simply commenting as an outsider saying that if you guys would all do what the heck you are on here to do, you wouldn't have the problem. The fault is equally theirs as it is yours. The entire project, of which you are apparently a member, wants the work done. How about this.. if you want the work done, do it; if you don't want it done, don't do it. But by not doing it, you are only opening yourself up to more attacks by dab editors who don't like you and aren't willing to do the work that they want done. If you'd just go ahead and do it, they'd have nothing more to dislike you about (and some of them may even help you), and the situation would be resolved. I give you my word that I won't comment on another dab related issue (I'll even remove WP:DAB from my watchlist), and I will still help out from time to time if I come across a dab page that needs fixing.. but I am no longer (if I ever was?) affiliated with the dab project. Sound good to you?
Argh. Please allow me to apologize. I am sorry i got crabby and snapped about this, at you. I think i do know better than you that it is a lot more work than you imagine so far, though. While you quickly did the last fixing on one dab page easily, where there was no complication, it would cost tons of wasted time to "fix" U.S. Post Office, and I just can't make myself do that. It is easier and better, actually, to oppose unreasonable deletion edits by one or a few editors. Editing all the dabs to avoid confrontation would be wasted effort anyhow as the supporting stuff would become moot / get deleted, after the articles are created anyhow. I would much rather work on actual articles, like in proceeding on a drive to create pretty good stub articles for all NRHPs in Fairfield County, Connecticut, where NRHP docs are available. I appreciate your responding to my anger with what you offered above, but it really isn't necessary. U can comment on dab matters whenever/wherever, and u r entitled to have an opinion, and i don't want to stifle discussion. I don't perceive that you are just out to oppose for the sake of opposing, say; i believe u believe what you say. I certainly will feel free, though, to point out that you have now been very clear you yourself don't want to do the makework that you propose be done, if that comes up again. :) Sorry again for getting angry. --doncram (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, i notice with interest your several big edits to the U.S. Post Office dab page, which is indeed probably the most daunting of all of the NRHP dab pages. First Presbyterian Church has the most (105) items of any hit within NRIS, by User:Doncram/NRHP disambiguation/checklist#sorted by number of duplicates but there are several variations of post office name grammar that get combined on the one dab page. One of your edit summaries suggest you have completed some part of editing that. I don't follow exactly what is completed, because in the dab i see many instances of "List of RHPs in CA" (for a state where all the counties have been split out, so there are no items at the state-wide list-article that is linked to by that redirect). That which would not be part of a valid supporting bluelink by the standards of one dab editor, who might feel free to delete all those entries. I believe your work is clearly helpful, in fixing the more difficult cases where the dab entry is not the same as a NRHP list-article entry. That is useful, really, and not just makework. All the easy-type lookups don't add as much or any permanent value, because they'll just be erased out after the individual article is created; the difficult ones are good for forcing good decisions on article names. Anyhow, if you're doing this as some kind of exercise to see how long it takes to meet that dab editor's complete demands, you've clearly gone a long way, but you're not done yet.... :) --doncram (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha well I figured if we were going to sit here and argue about it, someone should actually touch the page. You clearly weren't going to, so I gave it a shot. If I can do the "most daunting" page in a short amount of time, it can't be that hard to do the other, smaller ones. Maybe fixing this page will keep the other dab guys off your back for a while.

So far, I've fixed all the multiple bluelink occurrences in the entire list, so each line has only one bluelink now. As for linking to specific county/city lists, I've completed those through California (I guess you were writing this while I was editing the page, so you didn't see my latest edit). In the process, I've found several articles under different titles and fixed some duplicate entries, as well as cleaned up the page in general. I hope to have the page finished by sometime tonight or tomorrow.

...You're welcome.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, i hadn't yet seen that edit. I didn't know what u meant by multiple bluelink ones, but now i understand, those are the ones where an individual article has been created. I think what u've done is great. If you do come across discrepancies that suggest there was an NRIS error, like if on a county-list-article the name has been changed by a knowledgeable local editor, it is good in those cases to add items to the wp:NRIS info issues system. Just the quickest note there would suffice to identify there is some possible NRIS info issue to be reported on a given item. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't come across anything major. I think I changed several links from "US" to "U.S." and changed from hyphens to parenthetical disambiguation (e.g. "U.S. Post Office-Meridian" -> "U.S. Post Office (Meridian, Mississippi)") in some articles, but nothing that I feel is big enough to report. If I come across something like a misspelled city name or building, I'll definitely report it, but nothing so far.
Oh, btw, did you by chance see The Simmons & Wright Company? I just created the article last night using the NRHP nom and several online sources. I thought about putting it up for DYK, but I can't think of an interesting hook haha. It's basically just an old store. Any ideas? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated Simmons & Wright for DYK, with a hook concentrating on the movie. By the way, why is "The" in the article title? I've noted at T:TDYK that I'm unsure why it's included, so it might help if you'd respond there. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I responded there. "The" is there because of the official NRHP nomination name. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, D, can you possibly pls. fix up Washington Historic District, an old, much shorter dab than U.S. Post Office? It is subject of some discussion. --doncram (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. If you are willing to do more, Allen House and Adams House are two dab pages where i just did some other maintenance, that could do with same fixup. Not part of any contention; created compliant with DAB policy then, which has since changed. --doncram (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. There's no pleasing all the disambiguation-focused editors, because some of their preferences contradict one another, but another fairly common complaint is about state abbreviations. More feel that those should be spelled out. By the way, i think you over-perceive me as "always being in conflict", because i get flak from all sides. Without reading through it all, you see one editor complaining at me from one side, and me responding, and you see another complaining, but then i think you misbelieve they have a coherent view, when in fact they don't agree with each other. I say no on something to A, because people who think like B are likely to complain and have a legitimate point, and I also say no to B because people like A will complain. You just see me saying no to both A and B and think i am generating useless contention. Being involved in some churning contention like that is part of the territory, for building and maintaining a lot of structure in Wikipedia. Multiple new editors who see just part of a larger picture, will keep arriving and try to impose shifts that don't make sense from larger view. This means larger views have to be explained again and again, and then there is sometimes miscommunication and friction, too. For another example, I have been persona non grata many times over for explaining NRHP photos copyright policy, which is counter-intuitive. Being involved in such doesn't mean i cause contention or am a bad person. Thanks anyhow for fixing up the Allen House dab page. --doncram (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox NRHP updates

Thanks for all the work on the infobox! I especially like the feature to add a district map, and the historic district categorisation thing is very helpful as well. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I had been putting the categorizing thing off for forever, but I finally found the time to work with the code a bit. The other edits were things that had been suggested on the talk page that I had looked over ignored for lack of time haha. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
And I finally found time to take care of your latest request to copy new changes into the template. So far, so good! Thanks for all your work on the template. --Orlady (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Done as much as I could with Category:Historic districts in the United States. The rest I leave in other's capable hands. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! That would have taken me ages, and I've been busy for the past few days. I just cleaned up the rest of the category save a few user pages. Thanks again! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Meridian City Hall

Thanks for making Meridian City Hall! --mboverload@ 23:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you noticed that fast haha. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

NHRP search helps

Hello again,

I added some example search lines to Talk:Carpenter_House#NRHP_.26_Carpenter_search. I noticed that this type of search is okay on portal and discusion pages but not in article pages. Examples:
A)
Here is a link for finding both NRHP in an article and Carpenter in the title.
NRHP intitle:Carpenter

Here is a link for finding article in the category with a partial title of "National Register of Historic Places" and Carpenter in the text.
Carpenter incategory:intitle:National_Register_of_Historic_Places

Here is one using Carpenter & house in the text and a partial title of "National Register of Historic."
Carpenter house incategory:intitle:National_Register_of_Historic

Do you know of a version of the above that is okay to use in disambig pages to allow the reader to search for articles not listed yet on the disambig page? I have been off and on Wiki for a while and I am just fining these jems for searches. (And better than a list page ... :-) )

For example, when one does not use the 'search link' at the beginning (example code= search link|Carpenter incategory:intitle:National_Register_of_Historic_Places), no warnings are given. And it is used in other article "See also" sections. Examples:
B)

Curious. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking or why you're asking me haha, but if you're looking for a link to a search page from a dab page, they are like article pages.. I'm pretty sure no search links should be on them. You could use the search link to aid you in finding items to add to the dab page, but the search link itself shouldn't be on the page. Did this help? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Not really. :-)
Let me go back a step or two. I have been looking at how DAB pages were conceived early in Wikipedia and it had to do with poor search ability of the wiki and server capability. Also was the concern of anything but a basic search would be beyond most users capabilties. Catagorization is part of the search system in organzing articles so they can be found easier. DAB pages became manual affairs because the search capacity took up a lot of processing time and it was rather primitive compared to the version used today. The result was DAB pages to help with similar items and terms. Now that the search features have matured, DAB pages could become much more effective and not need so much maintaining if such a search formula was set up to replace the manual listings. And the search variables or formula creates a self generating list that are up to date when needed for the user.
So, the reason I am asking you, is that I have seen your open mindedness on Wikipedia. What do you think of using an updated search feature to replace the majority of manually maintained lists within DAB pages? Does this sound reasonable?
Once I can generate the examples and concept (by bouncing it off of users, I may bounce this concept upward for review. Any comment or thought would be appreciated.

Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok I see. Hmm.. Well I suppose the search functions have matured, and I like your take on how dab pages began, but I doubt very seriously that the search will ever be able to replace dab pages completely. Dab pages can sort current pages (and pages yet to be created) by region, subject, and many other identifiers that just aren't possible to handle with search alone, especially for not-yet-existing articles. You may be able to muster up enough support in include search links on dab pages (maybe in the See also section), and I could support that, but I highly doubt that you will be able to replace dabs completely. If you decide to take this up to higher levels, let me know. I'll certainly speak in your favour (though if someone else brings up a good counter-argument to the links' inclusion, I'll have to side with reason above anything).--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
That sounds fair. And a compromise is always good. Thanks for your input and honesty.! Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Simmons & Wright Company

The DYK project (nominate) 18:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

James Cant Ranch

I had intended to load the article under the title "James Cant Ranch Historical District", but left last two words out of title. Have been trying to correct that, but it seems you keep undo my fix. Please allow me a few minutes to change James Cant Ranch to James Cant Ranch Historic District. I will redirect former to later when I'm done. Thanks.--Orygun (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok I see. I assumed "James Cant Ranch" was the most common name for the place. Normally, though, blanking and moving information from one place to another is frowned upon. Usually the use of moves is encouraged. I'll allow you to continue, though. Sorry for the mix-up. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Meridian City Hall

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

D'oh!

My bad. APK whisper in my ear 14:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha. It's cool. Fixed now anyway :P --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Help Desk

Thanks for the heads-up; I think I got everything, now. Much appreciated! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Coords in infobox nrhp

Because of odd coding issues, I'd like to combine the three infoboxes appearing at Zaleski Mound Group. My sticking points is the coords — I have coords for two of the three mounds, but I can't figure out how to cause more than one to appear in any infobox. Is it possible to give more than one set of coords in a single infobox nrhp? If it is, how do I do it? Thanks as always. Nyttend (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You can use the | coordinates = parameter along with the {{coord}} template. My suggestion would be to do something like the following:
 | coordinates = {{coord|82|24|14|W|33|9|54|N|region:US-MS_type:landmark}}<br />{{coord|85|23|15|W|32|10|53|N|region:US-MS_type:landmark}}
--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Weidmann's Restaurant

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings

Please have a look at this draft RFC and let me know if you think it fully and fairly covers the issues involved. I intend to launch it within the next day or so. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I have heard no objections from anyone, the RFC is now launched. Please provide your opinion there! bd2412 T 19:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. I agree that the conversation is pointless to the degree that they are, obviously, the same thing. However, I am foursquare in favor of a uniform standard that matches our other articles, and that is not dictated by the happenstance choice of a particular organization to use an abbreviation. I will not trouble you on this issue again. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Washington County NRHP stubs

My thoughts exactly. I was able to take care of the the first set, but now its going be awhile. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugg...a pity this had to happen to a county with so many listings! Thanks for the help with the MPS links. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Soulé Steam Feed Works DYK

Hello! Your submission of Soulé Steam Feed Works at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NortyNort (Holla) 11:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Soulé Steam Feed Works

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages

Sorry, but I really don't find talk pages without talk to be helpful. My priorities with these Ohio articles is creation and improvement of the articles themselves, especially as I'm sure that I'm the only Wikipedian with access to this "Dictionary of Ohio Historic Places" source that I've used so heavily; I've tried to buy it online, but it's so hard to find that the only way I could get a copy was one I got from a local public library.

On a totally different note, do you know how to prevent infobox nrhp from putting an article into the HDs in the USA category if the locmap parameter isn't set? Mackinac Island is in the USA category for this very reason; it's also in the Michigan category, but only because the category code is placed in the article directly. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The talk pages help in determining article assessment for the project and overall statistics. See the front page of the project. As for the autocategorization, you can use "nocat = yes".--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of possible interest at ANI

Hi. I mentioned your name at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:doncram -- you may (or may not) be interested in the discussion there. --Orlady (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Mississippi Elks

Hi, i wonder if you could help to add info on 2 or 3 Mississippi items in newish List of Elks buildings. I'm not sure if there is or were two separate significant buildings in Greenwood, Mississippi (one listed on the Mississippi Blues Trail and a same or different one that is a Mississippi Landmark). And there's another landmark one in Jackson. I'm not at all familiar with sources available for these; could you help? No problem if not convenient. Regards, --doncram (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Coding for Cultural Monument of Albania

Sorry to bother you, but would you be able to whip up some coding for these in the infobox when you have a moment? The list appears fully populated, and once I have coding I can run through it with AWB and add rudimentary infoboxes. I don't know if there are more articles to be started, but I'll talk to the Albanian Wikiproject about it shortly. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As per Template:Designation/doc#Adding new designations, in order to add a new designation, a color layout needs to be chosen as well as which text to display. I would assume the text would be "Cultural Monument of Albania", but the colors are less my area. I am kind of partial to a red bar with black text to match the Albanian flag, but if there are other colors more closely related to the designation than the country, those should be used. There is also the idea of callnames. I assume "Cultural Monument of Albania", "Albanian Culutural Monument", and "Albania" will all be used, but if there are any other names, they should be included as well. Any ideas? I'll wait for a response before adding it.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I think a red bar with black text is a good choice. I've left a note with WP:Albania in case they have any ideas. As for callname, I'd add "Monument Kulture", which is the Albanian version of the name.
Just an FYI, I may also request a template designation for Polish historic sites in the coming days. I'd have done so already, only I'm not sure if there's a database online, and I need to ask around for someone with knowledge of Polish to help me look. I know it exists; I was just in Poland, and a number of buildings have labels on them mentioning some kind of heritage designation. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Another, while I'm at it: what about Russian cultural heritage register? There's an extensive database online, though only in Russian; even so, I think there's fodder for a lot of expansion there. Have you thought about making a template designation for that? If so, I'll maybe drop a note at WP:Russia to see what they think. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
OK - haven't heard anything new about it, just one comment supporting it. I think you're OK to go ahead with the coding. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Albania has now been added and can be called using "Cultural Monument of Albania", "Albanian Cultural Monument", "Albania", or "Monument Kulture". I'll add the Polish and Russian designations if a sizeable list article can be compiled of some examples. Though not required, it's usually suggested that there at least be some kind of list somewhere (if only a few links on the designation's main page to those buildings/sites/whatever that already have articles). This is so that at least one article can make use of the infobox for that designation as soon as it is added.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Understood. I'm still waiting on some information regarding Polish; for the Russian, I'll drop a note with the project tomorrow, and maybe see if I can enlist my mother's help - my Russian is next to nonexistent, I'm afraid. I'll let you know if/when either will be ready; I'll AWB the Albanian articles tomorrow.
Thanks for your help! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


notice

Your thoughts about editor-oriented hidden categories, or otherwise, would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Please change the standard citation to omit the link. :) --doncram (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Your comment is really hugely helpful. I think i possibly might have previously thought of using a template, but there's been so much contention about side stuff that doing it right that way was completely out of mind. And maybe if i was thinking of it, i still wouldn't have brought it up, because it would be yet one further layer of complexity to explain. Your suggesting it makes all the difference. For use in 20,000+ articles now, and more in the future, that is really good to plan to do, simpler and less disruptive now and in future. Thanks so much! P.S. I think i prefer {{NRISref}} as template name, keeping specifically to NRIS rather than suggesting it might handle www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com or other NRHP-related sources. I may draft something there but i would be glad if you'd make improvements directly or Talk there. --doncram (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It's might be easy somehow, but i don't see or recall how to program an optional argument into a simple template. Want to allow for "2009a" specific version to be given, in {{NRISref}}. See notes at Template:NRISref and testing at Template talk:NRISref. Could you possibly fix it? Or discuss at Template talk:NRISref. Thanks already. --doncram (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

NRHP infobox sandbox

Hey, I tweaked the sandbox to try and eliminate the whitespace that appears when embedding it in certain infoboxes. It seems to have worked, though. Care to double-check and make sure there aren't any unforseen consqueneces to the change? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me an example of the whitespace issue? I had never seen the issue myself. The colspan parameter that you changed wasn't any specific value.. I just wanted something really big so that it would work in any infobox (I hadn't seen one with 20 columns haha, so I figured that would work.) Where was this a problem, though?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a browser thing. It is prevalent in Internet Explorer 8 (an article like the PA Capitol has the white space info when view in IE8). Ideally I'd like to reduce the colspan to 2, as that would eliminate it completely, but that breaks the railroad infobox testcase. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 03:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I use Firefox (in which the display is fine), so that's why I didn't catch it. I also have a Mac, so I can't see what it looks like in IE. I agree that the colspan thing is kind of a hack, but that's the best I could come up with at the time... if there is whitespace, then I would support changing the number. I think colspan of 3 would catch the railroad infobox problem too while minimizing whitespace.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, the {{Infobox station}} has a separate paremeter to embed the NRHP infobox, so I reduced the colspan again. I'm going to test it on various other infoboxes, just to make sure it works, before requesting an editprotected. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh yea, I forgot about that parameter. It was added in the interim period when we were still trying to figure out how to best make the embed feature work. I agree that colspan=2 works for most (if not all other) infoboxes, and for the rare case of an infobox having more than two columns, the nrhp= parameter can be added. I think this is a pretty good solution. Sound ok to you?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. Are there any other infoboxes that had the parameter added, but might not need it anymore? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Possibly. To be honest, I'm not dedicated enough to hunt them down haha. If you'd like, you can probably search the template talk page or the archives of WP:NRHP.. I wouldn't worry too much about it though.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

NRHP template

I made the change to the template. That said, I don't know exactly what changes are supposed to occur, so can you check to see that it worked. I checked on use, and didn't see any difference, but that's obviously not a sufficient test.--SPhilbrickT 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Everything is working perfectly. Checking the what links here of Template:ConvertAbbrev/ISO 3166-2:US, I see the list has gone from several thousand to just a handful of articles, none of which are in mainspace, and none of which will cause disruption if the redirect is deleted. If you'd like to go ahead with that deletion, it would be more than welcome. Again, thanks for your help with this process.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Prop 19

How did so much crap get dumped on prop 19? and how did it go unnoticed for so long? --Dana60Cummins (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I remember when the guy first added all that stuff on there, and I reverted him within a few minutes, but then I guess I had to get off or something because he added all of it back a few minutes later without me reverting it again. Apparently no one else was watching the page, so it went unnoticed. I didn't realize it was back on there until there were some recent edits asking "what the point of this section is" and "this section belongs in Effects of Marijuana", etc. I've removed it all now and will continue to keep watch of the article. Who knows? Things happen haha. It's all good now though.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Meridian

Hey, good to hear from you and congrats on GA status for the article - I meant to write before. Thanks for the invite to your new one; sounds like a challenging topic taking on an historic event like that - good for you!Parkwells (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Response

I responded to your posted thread on my talk page. Thank you! Notorious4life (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Michigan Historic Sites

I added some sites to your sandbox listing (and did a little editing), but I have to say it's a PITA to go through those manually. Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha, yea I was monitoring you as you worked. Good job so far. I agree it's a pain to go through them manually, but as far as I can tell, there's no other place to get that information. I think as the list stands, we have 90 sites out of the total 2730 – 3.3% done haha. Joy. I guess we just have to keep chugging along unless we can come up with some more efficient way of adding them. I was actually thinking about splitting them into counties similar to the National Register of Historic Places listings in Michigan since there will be 2700+ entries. It may be necessary to split out county lists like the NRHP does. I'll get around to doing that in a while, though in the past day or so I think I may have come down with bronchitis, so I don't really feel like editing crap at the moment. Maybe over the next few days I'll get around to working more than I have been doing lately. In any measure, thanks for your help, and hopefully the daunting task won't turn you away. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually because you left it at 90 instead of 100, my OCD kicked in and I made it an even 100.. but then I decided to keep on going and have segmented the sites into county sections. To get only those sites that are listed in a certain county, the url is "http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/hso/advancematch.asp?ctype=county&cnty=COUNTYNAME", where COUNTYNAME is the name of the county. There is a catch, though.. some of the hits in these county lists are listed on the NRHP but not on the state list, so check to make sure before adding them. I've finished Alcona and Alger counties.. I think this kind of sectioning will probably make work seem like it goes faster. Instead of just doing 10 at a time, whole counties can be done.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Go to the "advanced search": there you can check only "State Register listed" and choose the county. Andrew Jameson (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, what "counts" as NRHP-listed? Frex, the state-listed "Champlain Street Cemetery of Temple Beth El" is an explicit component of the NRHP-listed Eastside Historic Cemetery District. Counts, yes? Conversely, the state-listed "Bishop's Residence of the Catholic Diocese of Detroit" is part of the NRHP-listed Palmer Woods Historic District. Counts, no? Andrew Jameson (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I have only been adding the dagger to those items in which the entry in the database has a "National register listed" date. Neither of these have that date, so I wouldn't put the dagger. Thanks for the advanced search link, btw.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
As a heads-up, I'm reasonably certain that the Michigan list hasn't been updated since 2005 or so. As an example, the Cadillac Public Library in Wexford County was added to the NRHP in 2007, and the Michigan list does not reflect that. Andrew Jameson (talk)

There are nine properties in Wayne County listed as MHS that are also NHLs (note not all NHLs are also Michigan Historic Sites). I've double-daggered them. I am willing to continue adding to the list in other counties, but my time is limited at the moment, so it'll be a while before I get back into it. Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Dudemanfellabra/Archive 3! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

Just wanting to let you know that I'm not ignoring you; I'm busy tonight, but I'll try to reply when things calm down. Just wanting to say — I hope I wasn't rude about it, and I'm sorry if I were. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's just that the standard definition of "stub" is significantly smaller than these articles generally are. Of course, we can have stubs that are longer because the topics are more important (if I remember rightly, there's some stub-related policy page that calls the original version of London a stub because the topic is so broad), but the way I see it, these places are obscure enough that we need not worry about them being highly important topics. Please note, by the way, that I don't do much with assessment; since the other ratings don't have a clear definition like "stub" does, I have no grounds to objecting to them firmly. I may ask for a reconsideration if I think the assessment is wrong, but I won't do that much, and I definitely won't do anything more than ask. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Bot request notice

Could you possibly visit and comment at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 39#NRIS references replacement request? Anomie suggests <ref name=nris>{{NRISref|error (date)}}</ref> which i don't see how to handle in template:NRISref. Maybe it is just an unnecessary complication. --Doncram (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Custom Importance

Currently in the templates sandbox page, Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/sandbox there is a version of the template with the importance enabled.

In the Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/importance subpage, there is the following: 

{{importance mask<noinclude>/templatepage</noinclude>
 |1={{{importance|}}}
 |class={{{class|}}}
 |topic=National Register of Historic Places
 |mycustomimportance=yes
}}

You can then assess pages with mycustomimportance by using the banner as follows on a talk page: 

{{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/sandbox|importance=mycustomimportance}}

Just change mycustomimportance to whatever you want to call the importance in the Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/importance subpage. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I just updated the subpage to include "related=yes", so I'm hoping that works? I noticed, though, that the documentation didn't change to include the related-importance. Is there any way I can make that show up or check to see if it actually worked?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The automatic documentation only works with the standard classes.
WikiProject iconNational Register of Historic Places Unassessed Related‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
RelatedThis article has been rated as Related-importance on the project's importance scale.
See. It works. The categories just need creating now and sandbox needs copying over to live. -- WOSlinker (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I've gone and done all that, so it's now ready to use. -- WOSlinker (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! The categories are populating. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Question: How would I get something like this set up for WP:NRHP? Category intersections that not only account for importance but class as well. This is desirable to make the {{Articles by Quality and Importance}} template work with our project. Sorry for the noobishness. I'm usually good at templates, having created several infoboxes and other things, but this banner stuff is throwing me for a loop!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to Category:National Register of Historic Places articles by importance. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well no, I was talking about the categories that show up in the above, i.e. Category:Top-importance Comics articles has subcategories Category:B-Class Comics articles of Top-importance, Category:C-Class Comics articles of Top-importance, etc. This is done (apparently) through the use of Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect. I'd like to set these categories up for use (automatically) in WP:NRHP. Do you know how to do that?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Adding the following code to the banner will do that.
|HOOK_ASSESS = {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect
 |QUALITY_SCALE  = subpage
 |IMPORTANCE_SCALE = subpage
 |class          = {{{class|}}}
 |importance     = {{{importance|}}}
 |category       = {{{category|¬}}}
 |ASSESSMENT_CAT = National Register of Historic Places articles
 |BANNER_NAME    = Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
}}
You should create all the categories first though. There are also SUPPRESS_NA_CLASS=yes and SUPPRESS_NA_IMPORTANCE=yes options if you are not interested in the NA intersections. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, the relevant categories have all been created, as is evidenced by the table below. I added the code to Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/sandbox, but I'm not an admin, so I can't add it to the actual template. Could you add it? Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
National Register of Historic Places
articles		 Importance Refresh
 Top   High   Mid   Low  ???  Total
Quality  FA 1 25 11 45 0 91
 A 0 0 0 2 0 8
 GA 2 82 66 374 0 539
B 10 244 138 893 9 1349
C 11 451 285 2653 8 3523
Start 9 2104 1136 22346 39 26136
Stub 0 48 674 42613 12 43815
 FL 0 3 0 3 0 12
List 2 116 2882 369 2 3458
??? 0 1 0 0 5 12
Total 45 3102 5226 69578 86 78037


I've updated the banner. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks so much for your help! The categories are now populating.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes very nice. How come the table here has nice clickable totals that u can use to get to the category of articles of that type, while the table somewhere at wp:NRHP does not? That table has nice subtotals and other features. Maybe both tables could appear there? --Doncram (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Look again. ;)--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Reconsider?

Little as I care about article quality assessments, I find them of more interest than I do article importance assessments. Nevertheless, I'd like to ask you to reconsider two articles on my watchlist: Mummy Cave (Low) and the Southworth House (Mid). The cave has gotten plenty of attention in scientific literature for the wealth of information that it's yielded, and it's featured by publications put out by the state government, but the house is quite insignificant except locally. It seems to me that if one article should be rated more importantly than the other, it should be the cave. Please don't take this as displeasure or unhappiness on my part: it's simply confusion. Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, your concern is perfectly fine. I have recently been going through articles and somewhat checking the historical aspect. If I find anywhere in the article that it has been recognized as a state or city landmark, I have rated it mid. (Exception for the New Jersey Register of Historic Places, which simply mirrors the NRHP.) If I couldn't find anything like that, I rated it low. This is just a default rating scheme that I have adopted. It is perfectly ok, and it has been agreed upon at the NRHP project that certain NRHP listings can be promoted to mid-importance status even if they are not locally recognized (see the disclaimer at the NRHP importance scale - the part in the mid row that says "click here for more information"). If you think that the Mummy Cave is significant enough to warrant a mid status, rate it mid. I'll do so now, but for sites like this in the future, you can up them yourself if you'd like. Don't let me stop you haha.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Mid" Importance NRHP in Michigan

I infer, from the pages showing up on my watchlist, that you're tagging properties that are both on the NRHP and on the Michigan historic list with a "mid" importance tag. I don't think that's necessarily appropriate for Michigan, as 1) there's a fairly high percentage of intersection between the NRHP and the Michigan list, and 2) there doesn't seem to be any higher threshold for inclusion on the Michigan list than the NRHP, so the intersection of the lists seems more of a random collection than a true measure of importance or priority. If you're picking and choosing what to tag from the intersection of the lists based on another aspect (even a subjective sense of importance), then I'm fine with that, and ignore my comment. But choosing them all is the sort of "checklist" option that I commented on in the original discussion. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is similar to Nyttend's comment just above. Hey, Dudemanfellabra, i think it would be a good activity, seriously, to help involve more editors in each state, to start up discussions at the STATE wikiprojects Talk pages themselves or over at "Talk:List of RHPs in STATE", about which NRHPs should be kicked up to higher (usually Mid) importance for Wikiproject NRHP, and also about whether the STATE wants itself to assign higher importance to NHLs or other ones. Can we start to do that, rather than your making those assessments of which state and local designations are more important, for them? I recognize you're not doing anything irreversible, but i think it would just seem nice to be inviting more editors in when it is fresh and open. I'm willing to start such conversations at a few state wikiprojects over the next few days. I'll try first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North Dakota and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Utah. --Doncram (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is the same type of comment as above. Like I said there, I am currently going through and tagging all articles that are state/local landmarks as well as being listed on the register as mid-importance, with some exceptions for states where things like this have been brought up. NJ was brought up at the project talk page, so I ignored it (though I later found the {{New Jersey Historic Sites}} template and tagged all those mid-importance). If you think marking all Michigan State Historic Sites as mid-importance isn't reflective of their true importance, then that's fine; I'll stop doing it. I don't plan on going and asking editors from all 50 states before I go through these articles and assess them, but if someone brings the issue up about sites in their state, that's fine with me. Not being from Michigan or New Jersey, I'm fairly ignorant of the historic registers there, I admit.
As I said above, I'm just going through with a basic blueprint of which articles to rate which importance. After everything has a rating, it's fine for state editors to go through and look over their counties/parishes or whatever and see if they like how it turned out. If you want some Michigan sites to be mid-importance, I suggest you rate those articles mid-importance. From now on, I'll rate them all the generic low, but I'm not the only one with the authority to rate them, you know.. you can go behind me if you'd like.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
What your encountering in New Jersey is one editor's interest in noting New Jersey-ness within new stub articles he created using Elkman generator. Every NRHP listing in New Jersey is automatically on the New Jersey register. That one editor has not changed other articles started by other editors, for the most part; it is just arbitrary which NRHP articles happen to have that New Jersey site box. The New Jersey case was actually mentioned in passing already, it is like New York too where all NRHPs have state designation. You should go back and remove the Mid importance for all of the New Jersey ones. Would you please do that? Sorry, my mistake, that New Jersey sites list is something different than i understood.
Okay, let me ask you. Please do not put Mid importance status onto any state's articles. I will go to every state (besides Mississippi) and open a discussion there, and specifically invite local editors that i have noticed, and we can get back to you. Give me some time to do that. I think it will go better if it is fresh and we are not presuming for them, what is the meaning of state and local registers that you and i don't know too much about. Even in California, where i do know a lot, i would rather ask/involve other editors. You may choose to seek other Mississippi editors in a similar discussion or not. --Doncram (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Although i think it could be a productive thing to do, i am not willing/able to try to open conversations with editors in each state right now. I think your importance ratings have basically been good. Thanks for doing them. --Doncram (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

nhl lists

Hey, this is obvious and small enough, i think, that i don't want to bring it up at wt:NRHP.

  1. Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City‎
  2. Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Philadelphia‎
  3. Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Boston‎

I disagree with your assessment that these are less important than other NHL lists. In fact, if u look at them, these are the 3 probably most important NHL lists, offhand with a lot more importance than, say to pick one at random, List of NHLs in MS!

Your edit summary was "mid importance nrhp list; covers scope smaller than state". Note the contents of these lists are not included in statewide lists. You would be dismissing the NHLs that are covered in them, which include many of the most important historic sites in U.S. history.

Let's not be too bureaucratic. I don't even want to change the importance rating guidelines to address this. It's just obvious without explanation, and we're only talking about 3 list-articles. --Doncram (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your assertion that these NHLs are somehow more important than MS NHLs. They may be more important to you, but to people in MS, I'm fairly certain that the NHLs here are of much more importance. Importance is a subjective matter, and this is what I've been saying all along. Without a clear cut guideline for rating articles, we may as well not even have importance ratings. Of course there is always wiggle room – as I have expressed in the sections above – but frankly I'm tired of seeing you rate everything and it's mom high-importance. As I have said numerous times at the project talk page (though no one else seems to care enough to reply), what is important to you is irrelevant.
About the NHLs not listed in state-wide lists, neither are county-level NRHP lists. Are we dismissing them? Of course we are. The importance scale specifically states (and I believe you were the one that put it in there) that all list articles covering scopes smaller than state-level should be rated mid. Maybe this is just another instance of when you say something you think (because you haven't thought that much about it), and then upon seeing that it's not going to go exactly how you had it predetermined in your subjective mind, you want to change what you said. I'm just really tired of that, and I'm pretty much ready to just say fuck it and go on about my day.
You can't just simply erase boundaries and redraw them how you like them. There is an importance scale for a reason. If you'd like to change what the scale says, I'd suggest you talk to the people that agreed on it – those at the wikiproject – instead of hounding me for simply sticking to the scale we agreed to in the first place. I'm inclined to actually support changing the wording of the importance scale to say that all NHL lists should be high importance since the NHLs themselves are all high importance, but that's not what the current guideline says. Even if I don't agree with them, I stick to guidelines and policies on here. If the policies change, I change with them. I don't just go injecting what I think is important and force everyone to bow down to me. If I had my way, the Threefoot Building, one of the most important historic sites in Mississippi in my opinion would be not just high but top-importance. I don't do that, however, because the guidelines don't permit it. Maybe you should do the same. If you have a beef with the guidelines, bring it up there, but don't complain to me about simply following those that are already in place.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
a cottage in Natchez
Excessively bureaucratic. Even u agree that those NHL lists should be high, u r just claiming you are bound to blindly follow a guideline that we have just created, and which is not written in stone. I don't think the guideline wording should be changed to write something different, as that is silly clutter, for 3 obvious cases. Argh. I don't want to get into arguments with u about silly small matters. In some other discussions, our differences of perspective and experience and imagination are useful to explore and share with others, and lead to better outcomes than either of us might reach on our own. This seems like silly and stupid and small, instead. P.S. Lighten up about my Mississippi joking, sorry if my intended tone did not convey. I do like Longwood but seriously Woolworth Building is more important. :) --Doncram (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How I use importance assessments

I was about to come and tease you that the same article that receives a low assessment on the NRHP wikiproject should automatically be a mid or high importance for the Delaware wikiproject because there ain't a damn thing here. But it looks like, based on the comments above, handing out honest ratings is a pretty thankless task. Really, the only time I've used these assessments is when I look at Top or High importance articles that are rated as a Stub or Start, figuring I'll get the biggest bang for the buck making improvements. Keep up the good work. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Cathedral in Meridian

Hi, i wonder if you could share to me an electronic copy, if you have one, of the NRHP nom for Scottish Rite Cathedral (Meridian, Mississippi). Also if you could check what is proper attribution for the fire that destroyed it. I've copied your fire info from the List of RHPs in Meridian article, to that separate page for the building and also to the List of Masonic buildings that i have been developing recently. It doesn't make sense, offhand, though, that the info that the building was destroyed would appear in its NRHP nomination. Could you please take a look? Thanks, --doncram 18:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation updated/email sent.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying and sending that. It makes sense now, that the correspondence establishing fire was included in same PDF bundle as an accompanying copy of the Mississippi historic site survey document. All cleared up i think, thanks! --doncram 21:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mission San Francisco de Solano

The mission is part of the Sonoma Plaza Historic District. Doesn't that qualify it for inclusion in WikiProject National Register of Historic Places?—Stepheng3 (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know about the contributing property status (it's mentioned nowhere in the article). Yes, it should be under the WP:NRHP scope then, but it is not itself listed on the National Register; see the contributing property article. Contributing properties are not themselves listed on the NRHP, so they shouldn't be in NRHP categories. The "National Historic Landmark Nomination: Sonoma Plaza (#75000489)" (PDF).
document, however, does list the Mission as a contributing property, so Mission San Francisco de Solano can be added to Category:Historic district contributing properties. That document also contains a lot of information about Sonoma Plaza in general, so if you feel bold, that would be a good place to begin expanding the district article. I'll go ahead and add the CP category now. Sorry about the confusion.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm still confused, but I trust you to do the right thing. Never a shortage of work to be done!—Stepheng3 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Bot trial and NRISref

Could you look at trial results from AnomieBot 50, at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 50? These replaced NRIS reference for 50 trial edits. The first couple are putting in version 2006a, but the articles don't reflect the version date, so I think template:NRISref is not working as intended. Can you address that possibly, and browse other edits in the trial? Thanks! --doncram 02:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please specifically consider this Bot edit, which inserted "no date specified" for a 2007 date that is invalid in terms of not being an expected version date. I think that is okay, probably what we wanted, but we need to be able to see that displayed and/or we need that article to appear in a cleanup category. So that we would be prompted to update its NRIS info, probably entered by a non-regular (because the non-usual date suggests to me probably it is an accessdate inserted). --doncram 02:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The bot wasn't putting "version=___", but was instead just putting the date code. While I'm pretty sure we explained this to Anomie in the bot proposal, I've just update NRISref to interpret the first unnamed parameter as the version. Now everything seems to be fine. The category is on the page as a hidden category. You created it yourself, remember? Category:NRISref errors.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Hmm, maybe Anomie should be informed that the version=___ is needed? There are articles with version=___ in them, from some test edits by me and from my implementation into the NRHP batch generator articles, e.g. Oak Lodge for one article in List of RHPs in Middlesex's batch, in progress, with "version=2009a". Hmm, that seems to display okay though. Does either way work now? I guess. It would be nice, if all this is good, if you could comment positively at the Bot review. Thanks, --doncram 03:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, either way works now.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Mitchell House

I just finished writing Joseph Mitchell House, a few miles away from my house, and I'd like to ask two things of you — (1) Would you please rate it? (2) Could you try to find something about it that is DYK-worthy, since I can't? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I rated it C-Class, Low-importance. If you feel, however, that it deserves to be Mid-importance, feel free to up it. I think maybe the most interesting fact about the house is that it stayed in the family for almost a full century. Maybe something like "...that after being awarded a land grant in Monroe County, Indiana for his service in the War of 1812, Joseph Mitchell built the Joseph Mitchell House, which stayed in the family until 1922." There's a lot of information about the house, but nothing that really sticks out in my mind (no offense meant) that would be particularly interesting... Sorry :\--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, the whole reason that I asked your opinion was that there was nothing that stuck out in my mind, either. The most interesting thing that I could find was the fact that it's the third oldest house in the county. Once I write on the Daniel Stout House, I'll probably concentrate on its being the oldest house in the county, but in a county that's very average on things like this, third-oldest isn't at all interesting. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I may need to ask for reassessments on some places, since I've recently discovered that some of the local properties that you've rated are also locally designated. However, at the moment, I can't remember which ones are and which ones aren't. That leads me to question #2 — how is the issue of local rating being done with historic districts? Here in Bloomington, the city doesn't give statutory designations to districts: only individual buildings can officially be protected. Most of the statutory designations are scattered here and there, and only one district (the redlinked Prospect Hill Historic District) is composed mostly of designated structures. Will Prospect Hill qualify for mid-importance because the majority of properties are locally designated, or will the absence of a local designation for the district as a whole mean that it gets low? Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
There isn't really a "checklist" for low/mid rating.. If you feel like a building/district has enough local significance to differentiate it from all the other NRHP listings in the area then rate it mid. Ideally, at least a handful in every county should be rated mid. The local/state landmark qualifier is in there because more times than not, sites that have been recognized at the state or local level are more important/noteworthy than those that haven't been. This is not always the case, though. As has been brought up before, any NRHP listing in New Jersey is also on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places, so if this were a checklist, there wouldn't be a single Low-importance NRHP article in New Jersey – which obviously isn't ideal. I think I may modify the importance scale to reflect this fact. Some editors have also brought up other designations that aren't really that telling either, such as User:Andrew Jameson with Michigan State Historic Sites. I believe (though he may not have done the whole state) that he went through and marked sites he thought deserved to be mid-importance and I have now defaulted to rating those articles low. It's basically all subjective, but state/local registers can be a good indication of importance, so they are included accordingly.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Camp Nelson

Hi, I believe you recently assessed the article on Camp Nelson National Cemetery. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on how the article might be improved? I would appreciate it if you left any advice on the article Talk page. Thanks. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

i just noticed

your edit at -Cass Gilbert and find it impossible to believe (it could be a failure of imagination on my part) that he has less than ten NRHP buildings. He did a state capitol or two, the US Supreme Court building the Woolworth building - they have to total more than ten. I'll check, but perhaps you could too? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary was actually that he had more than 10 buildings on the NRHP. According to the NRHP importance scale, architects with fewer than 10 buildings get a rating of "Related-importance", architects with 10-50 buildings get "Low-importance", those with 50-100 get mid, and 100+ gets high. Now I by no means counted every single building he designed, but I'm sure he's had more than 10. If after checking official records we find that he has more than 50, we could upgrade it to mid. I'm not going to put too much focus on it, though, since I'm trying to clear out the almost 30K NRHP articles about actual sites on the register that have no importance rating. Feel free to do the research though haha, and if you're up to it, maybe even finding some more NRHP architects and rating them.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi
Kembali kehalaman sebelumnya