Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 25

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Doncram in topic New template
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Buildings with same name in same town

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Hey all. I'm working my way through Texas listings, and found that there are 2 Alamo National Bank Buildings listed in San Antonio. They are separate buildings on separate listings, one listed in 1984, one in 2006. How should the article pages be named? Refs. #84001574 and #06000364. Thanks. 25or6to4 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think that #84001574 should be the "Old Alamo National Bank Building" as that appears to be the alternate name given for it. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We've got a similar problem in the two Manhattan Lincoln Buildings. Some editors including me have actually confused them at times. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Hassocks5489 has used street names or neighborhood for similarly-named churches in the Brighton and Hove area. That would seem to me to be the most logical way to go about disambiguating them. Circeus (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest using street names. See Masonic Temple Building, Fayetteville Street (Raleigh, North Carolina) and Masonic Temple Building, Blount Street (Raleigh, North Carolina). APK How you durrin? 00:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but I think the street name needed for disambiguating should be inside the parentheses, too, following the shorter name of the building. Thus, "Masonic Temple Building (Fayetteville Street, Raleigh, North Carolina)" and "Masonic Temple Building (Blount Street, Raleigh, North Carolina)". In the NRHP list-article about Raleigh, NC, you could use pipelinks to the articles but show the street names to provide the necessary disambiguation within the list-article: "Masonic Temple Building (Fayetteville Street)" and "Masonic Temple Building (Blount Street)". doncram (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As precedent, there are a couple pairs af identically-named buildings in Detroit which I disambiguated using the date of construction in one case (Saint Joseph's Episcopal Church, 1926 (Detroit, Michigan) and Saint Joseph's Episcopal Church, 1883 (Detroit, Michigan)) and the current name of the structure in the other (Temple Beth-El (Bonstelle Theatre) and Temple Beth-El (Lighthouse Cathedral)). In the latter case, using the current name was natural, as the Bonstelle Theatre, in particular, is fairly well known. In the former case, using the current name would be awkward (and the structures are located on the same street, so Circeus's suggestion wouldn't work), so the date seemed like a reasonblr disambiguation. Nonetheless, I have no problem renaming is there's some consensus on a better approach. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions! For now, I put the construction year in parenthesis, as the listings did have those documented. What makes this one a little more sticky situation is that, even though they have different street names, both buildings have their prominent sides on the same street (Commerce St.), and they're only about 2 blocks apart. 25or6to4 (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Need help at Aloha Tower

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The lede of Aloha Tower claims that it is a lighthouse. All evidence from NOAA and the USCG indicates that this isn't the case and probably never was the case. If someone can come up with a good cite, OK< but in the meantime I don't know that I can edit the lede to remove this without destroying it. As it is, it's rather puffy anyway. I'm also posting this at WP:HAWAII. Mangoe (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who's correct (got no dog in this fight), but I can understand why the lede would say it's a lighthouse. The Aloha Tower Marketplace website says, "Although built primarily as a symbol, Aloha Tower also had a more practical function. Rising opposite the entrance to Honolulu Harbor, it has a commanding view of the whole harbor and offers a front row seat for the excitement. The tower also used to serve as a lighthouse and could be seen as far as 16 miles if out at sea." Lighthousefriends.com says, "Besides its giant greeting displayed for arriving passengers, the tower, the tallest structure in Honolulu when it was finished in 1926, was also topped by a beacon to help captains enter the harbor." A few RS that call it a lighthouse/light station or mention the "Honolulu Harbor Light" being on top of the Aloha Tower (from 1926-1975) include the following: UNC, US Coast Guard, Book - Hawai'i Place Names, Book - The Field Guide to Lighthouses of the Pacific Coast, etc. APK How you durrin? 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah! I hadn't seen that. Thanks for the response. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nebraska directory

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just found this Nebraska government website that details every property (or at least lots of them) throughout the state. There are short summaries given, not long bits, but this should be useful for all properties. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It does have nice short descriptions, like for one in Arthur County, in the Sandhills Region: "The Pilgrim Holiness Church, located in Arthur, was built in 1928 of baled rye straw. Baled hay or straw proved an alternative to lumber or sod as a building material and was used throughout the Sand Hills. The structure is the only known church built of baled straw, and the building is a unique example of Nebraska folk architecture." Perhaps it would be useful to create one good example starter article, with an appropriate reference footnote format worked out, for Nebraska NRHPers, and link to it from our Editor Help page. Also this Nebraska source provides a 10 region division of Nebraska's 93 counties, which could be used to group the state's shorter counties into meaningful, geo-based group list-articles. doncram (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox merger again

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Recently we implemented the changes in {{Infobox nrhp2}} into the standard {{Infobox nrhp}}. I didn't think about it afterwards, but the job is not finished. There are still 1000+ articles that link to nrhp2 that need to be relinked to nrhp. Maybe we can get a bot to do this or use AWB like we did earlier? Also, I think we should think about taking off the full protection of the infobox along with some other NRHP pages. Semi-protection should suffice, in my opinion, and we wouldn't need to rely on an administrator to make a small change. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, was going to comment but forgot. Shouldn't be too difficult to put in a bot request and for someone to code a bot to switch the templates. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok.. I didn't know it was that easy to put in a bot request. I just put in one.. hopefully we'll hear back shortly. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I also assumed this could best be done by a bot. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems no one is willing to run a bot for us, although it reportedly would be very easy for anyone who runs bots to do this with no programming required, it's just a simple text string replacement in 1600 articles. See Wikipedia:bot requests#Bot needed for merger of template Infobox nrhp2 and template Infobox nrhp. doncram (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, now resolved in my view. Not as we were requesting, but by changing infobox nrhp2 to be a Fully protected redirect to infobox nrhp. The bot request people didn't exactly jump to do what we asked for, but they were fundamentally helpful and we are set up with a better sandbox and testcases system now. Future nrhp infobox changes to be discussed at Template:infobox nrhp, sandbox at Template:infobox nrhp/sandbox, test cases at Template:infobox nrhp/testcases. Dudemanfellabra or others can test either there or in their own sandboxes, if they prefer, but when there is an actual proposal ready it should be done in this new system. doncram (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

when NRHP infobox maps are TOO BIG

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In MD, TN, VA, some other more horizontal and irregular states, the NRHP infobox map is short and really nicely adds, with a photo or not. In NJ, CO, and more vertical or squarish states, the map is too big and ugly and often doubled in size with a US map as big as the state one. But hey, check out what the mapwidth option can do, here by Maralia for USS New Jersey.

In GA, the NRHP infobox comes in with the country, not the state, but that is a useful exercise for the reader to ponder, so it's best left in that way. :) doncram (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely the reason for having the "map_width" parameter (note the underscore; you left it out above). There is also a parameter ("image_size") that can be used for when an image's dimensions force it to be very long. About the GA thing, you have to type "USA Georgia" for it to work. There's no real way around that haha – unless you can convince someone to change either the name of the country or the name of the state :P. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is why I use the same proportions no matter what I make a map of (example: File:Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad system map (1918).svg). --NE2 06:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Condensing NHL-list pages

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

15-March-2009: (new topic) I have been condensing the 7-column NHL tables for some of the U.S. states, to widen the Description columns, as follows:

Because some state-pages contain less detail, not all of the 50 states need to be changed (except to fix other issues for each state).

The general problem has been that the "Description" column, for some states, has been too narrow, with text wrapping down the column as 2-words-per-line, when displayed in portrait-style (such as 800x600), rather than in wide landscape windows. Of course, short descriptions don't matter, but some states have long descriptions, which have wrapped down 28-lines of text in the column, due to the 2-words-per-line. Solutions have included:

  • S1: widening whole tables from 98% to 101%;
  • S2: widening whole tables from 98% to 755px as a left/right scrolling table on narrow windows;
  • S3: narrowing the "Landmark name" column from 18% to 13% or 12%;
  • S4: putting the "Date" column in small-font to release 2-characters of width;
  • S5: re-labeling the "Date declared" column as "Date listed" to release another 2-characters of width;
  • S6: putting long city/county names in small-font to release 2-to-8 characters of width.
  • S7: shortening coordinate numbers to 5 decimal-places, to release 3-to-5 characters of width.

The problem appears when the pages are viewed in portrait-width displays, rather than with wide, landscape windows. As a matter of fitting the 7 wide columns, across the page, the optimal solution varies from page to page. NOTE: Ultimate typesetting is always best when tailored to a specific page, so each page will vary. In terms of readership, those NHL-list pages seem viewed over 20x times per day (for most states), with New York, California or Texas viewed over 75 times per day. Again, any states with short descriptions of the NHL-landmarks, would not need to be changed.

In general, the fastest solution (generating a scrollable table) is to set table-width from "98%" to "755px" (or similar); however, some pages can auto-wrap columns okay with the width=101% rather than 755px. It depends on each state. Obviously, a very long description, wrapped down 28 lines, would look worse than a short description covering only 4 lines. This is the start of this topic. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2009

Can you please hold off changing a lot of these tables until people have more than an hour to discuss this? I realize you have extremely developed views on the best way to fix these tables. Personally, I'm just wondering if it would be better to attack the problem by focusing you on the table function, (e.g. generating different optimizations for different rendering needs) than having you hand tune (in ways some may like and some may not) individual articles. Thanks dm (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
As an additional aside, I see you're still modifying tables and among other things trimming their coordinates to 5 decimal places, which IIRC is 1m accuracy, clearly good enough. However, those coord all came from the underlying articles, which are now different. Were you planning on changing those as well? dm (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think rounding of coordinates is generally understood; however, as you indicated, perhaps a central change to a table-format template should include a small footnote explaining that coordinates were rounded. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Addressing multiple issues per article

16-March-2009: (subtopic) I have "numbered" the solutions above (as S1-S7), for reference in further discussions. I added S5: re-labeling the "Date declared" column as "Date listed" to release another 2-characters of width. I realize the focus to "wait for debate"; however, in experimenting with 5 actual articles, I have discovered the several ways to expand the description from 2-words-per-line to 5 or 7-words-per-line. The actual changing of the articles is better proof-of-concept than just supposing. Also, the footnotes in the headings contained many empty citation-keywords, disguising the fact that 3 verbose footnotes were duplicates of earlier footnotes, apparently in most table-headers of those articles. Also, some articles don't contain full sentences for the intro. The date for "Wounded Knee" was "September" rather than "December 21". Thus the experimentation has revealed that the articles need to be changed for several other reasons, rather than just table-format alone. I suggest creating a to-do list to revise all 50-state articles, checking for duplicate footnotes, bad NHL dates, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikid77 knows more about fixing up any one table this way than I do, but I would be a lot more comfortable if we could understand this better. There are more wp:NRHP list-tables being created, and perhaps we could implement one solution to the new ones and go back to the 1,000 or so old ones we have set up already, systematically. But I don't understand yet, and I don't know whether to be confident that the improvements work for all browsers, for example. For a start, could we get a list / table of test cases, showing versions before and after such fine tuning, with a note on what was changed for each? To facilitate that, I'll open a subpage here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/TableDisplayTestCases and i'll try to put a couple of Wikid77's changes in there. Discussion can continue here, test cases and more specific discussion there? doncram (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Wikid77 for numbering the separate items. About cutting "Date declared" to "Date listed", I say NO! We use listing for NRHP-listing, we use designated or declared for NHL designation. Not worth the 2 characters, in my view, to go back against that. About S7, cutting off decimal coords at 5 digits after the decimal, i think that is fine, very good. (How did 10 digit coords get in anyhow?) You are jumping right into fixing up the NHL lists, which is also good. There are many more deficiencies noted in a big working list on these which we have going, used in big development/cleanup drive that ended July 5, 2008. The tracking list was current up into the Fall of this last year, and still accurately identifies many remaining deficiencies like key links to NHL webpage references and documents being missing in some articles. The tracking list is transcluded within a box on our main page wp:NRHP, and it is accessible directly as an article by shortcut wp:NHL progress. Perhaps this is good impetus to revamp a new cleanup drive, a year later? Now also with more focus on column widths and display issues? doncram (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rogue River Ranch "Nation Historic Site"

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure why that is, but Rogue River Ranch refers to the place repeatedly as a "National Historic Site", event though te infobox, lists and categories do not match. Anybody can look into it? Circeus (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the pdf and other references used throughout the article aren't working for some reason. Apparently the site is under maintenance or something, so I can't verify that it's a national historic site, but if those pdfs exist, the site is more than likely a pdf. All that needs to be done is add "nrhp_type = nhs" to the infobox, and the problem will be taken care of. I'd wait until blm.gov gets their problems worked out first, though, and we can actually verify the NHS status. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Post Office and renaming articles from NRIS spellings

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The subject of using NRIS names like "US Post Office-Albion", "US Post Office-Bath", or inconsistent variations given in the NRIS system for article names has come up, in edits at U.S. Post Office (Riverhead, New York) and the really huge U.S. Post Office disambiguation page. At the latter, I recently reversed edit from redlinks like US Post Office-Albion to redlinks U.S. Post Office (Albion, New York) etc. Within bluelink article U.S. Post Office (Riverhead, New York), I recently restored display of "US Post Office-Riverside" in the NRHP infobox title and added it in bold as an alternative in the text.

I have been building dabs like U.S. Post Office (to which US Post Office and other variations redirect) which may seem unappealing to many. They indeed show wildly varying spellings for red-links and actual bluelink articles. (U.S. Post Office, one of the largest dabs in the growing Category: Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles, seems like a monstrosity, if I do say so myself.) However, there is a logical consistency in what I have been doing with these, a ruthless bureaucracy if you will, and I want to defend it or explain it, rather than let it get dismantled randomly. The main point I have to make is that the names of these places are given by NRIS, and those ARE the NRHP names for the places unless and until changes are accepted by the NPS and put into the NRIS system. These nanes are documented at www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com (NRHP.com), at www.archiplanet.org, and at www.freebase.com, which of course are mindless mirrors of the NRIS system. Do we have to slavishly follow the NRIS names, even when they seem like typos? Well, I think yes and no.

Upfront, I and most who've done this stuff change double dashes in NRIS names to single dashes, like if it was "US Post Office--Albion" it has been changed to "US Post Office-Albion". Also, we unwind comma-convoluted names, like "Smith, Alvin, House" becomes "Alvin Smith House". And we add (City, State) where there are multiple places of exactly the same name, as there are for "U.S. Post Office" and "US Post Office". (Call these modified NRIS names.)

And if the name really is an obvious typo, like for the location of one "U.S. Post Office" in "Des Noines, Iowa" we note the typo at wp:NRIS info issues, report it to the NRHP, and use a revised/corrected name U.S. Post Office (Des Moines, Iowa) (M not N).

But, I say if the name is not an obvious typo, and if we have not centrally recorded our decision (as at wp:NRIS info issues), and if we aren't going through a process to get it changed at the National Register, then I say the NRHP name for the site is as NRIS gives it. Therefore, the redlink "US Post Office-Albion" should stay in the NRHP county list-article and stay in the U.S. Post Office dab page. And when its article is created, "US Post Office-Albion" should be displayed in the NRHP infobox and mentioned in bold in the text as an alternative name. In fact, if a reliable reference is not found to show the common name of the place is something else, the article should be kept at that, too!

When the article has been created, if it is the same as the NRIS name then the name on the dab page and the NRHP county list-article is correct. If the article name is different, then a redirect from the modified NRIS name should be created. And, on the dab page, the name can/should be updated to show the actual wikipedia article name. In the NRHP county-list articles, the NRIS official name should continue to appear, either by pipelink or by the redirect to the actual article. But the disambiguation page, under wp:MOSDAB rules, is different, and the need to show actual wikipedia article names there trumps over any wp:NRHP potential preference for showing NRIS names.

I think there is some obsessive-like madness going on in my position here, but I think this is a workable and clear system and I currently think it is the best. It provides, to encyclopedia users out there, assurance that this particular place covered in wikipedia article U.S. Post Office (Riverhead, New York) is indeed the "US Post Office-Riverhead" mentioned at NRHP.COM or elsewhere. It gives us some good incentives to be honest to the National Register system, and to get the National Register system changed if we don't like it. If we do get a change put through, then NRHP.COM, Archiplanet, etc. will eventually get caught up too, in their next download and reinstallation from NRIS. I think this works as a dictum: If you don't like one of these NRIS names for a place, then it is up to you to get it changed in the National Register. Appreciation and/or other comments welcome! :) doncram (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree you. NRIS should be treated at the authoritative source for the names, after all, it is database used by the authenticating agency. You would want to be able to take the info provided by WP to search the NRIS. I wouldn't mind redirects from common or colloquial names, but the article should be under the actual name. Rotating the name, like Alvin Smith House is not changing the name, but the NRIS was simply doing so to accommodate cataloging. Noting typos and other "errors" is appropriate, and should also attempted to be corrected. Ahwiv (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind using the official name in infoboxes, but with so many cities, towns, villages, and other local municipalities sharing the same name, using state names within article titles makes much more sense. There are othere Riverhead's in the world besides New York, and there are other Baths in the United States besides New York. When I think of U.S. Post Office-Long Beach, I may think of New York, but somebody else may think of California. When I think of U.S. Post Office-Newark, I think of New Jersey, not New York. And how do we know US Post Office-Albion doesn't refer to Albion, Michigan? ----DanTD (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, good points. Maybe i over-reached, only in asserting that ""US Post Office-Albion" should perhaps be used as the article name, when I agree it is not a good wikipedia article name. Searching on "Long Beach" within the big dab finds 2 redlink entries:
and the corresponding state/county list-articles should show those names spelled exactly that way, too. Actually, the explanatory blue-links in the dab entries really should be bluelinks to the correct county NRHP lists which should show the exact same redlink, rather than being blue-links to the state-wide list, but i can't make myself go and look those up just to meet MOS:DABRL rules to the T. (The dab page bluelinks should be given as listed on the NRHP in Los Angeles County, California and listed on the NRHP in Nassau County, New York, which actually do show exactly those modified NRIS name redlinks.) I have to agree with you, that neither of those red-link names are good names for articles. But you are free to find any documentation of a different name and then to use that name in the article (with possible addition of disambiguating (City, State). So if there's a brochure at the post office or something calling it "Long Beach U.S. Post Office", you can use that name for the article, and make "US Post Office-Long Beach" into a redirect to that. Actually, the New York State historic documents database system is one more source that relies upon NRIS and lists it exactly as "US Post Office--Long Beach". The NRHP application document it serves up here titles it as "United States Post Office, Long Beach" with alternative name "Long Beach Post Office". The latter would justify Long Beach Post Office (Long Beach, New York) as an article name, which is what i would prefer, from afar, if i were creating the article. If you create the article under that name, then please do set up a redirect, and please feel free also to change the entry in the dab list to reflect the actual article name. But please don't change the redlinks in the dab page to lose the connection to the actual NRIS name, if you have not yet created the redirect and used the NRIS name in the infobox and as alternative in text of the article. This is semi-bureaucratic, but is this not reasonable? I think it leaves it open to you to create those articles. P.S. If you want to do more of the NY post office ones, check the post offices of NY thematic document, and set them all up from that. If "US Post Office-Albion" is unreasonable, then surely the thematic document will show a better name for it in real life. :) doncram (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, for the record, I have been working on three other Long Island-based post office building articles latley(Northport, Bay Shore, and Westhampton Beach), none of which I've mentioned, but of their respected locations could just as easily be mistaken for being in another state, with the exception of Westhampton Beach, which could be mistaken for Westhampton. In any case, after finding out that some of the Post Office buildings in Nassau County were located in areas that I've already taken pictures of railroad stations, I've been inspired to consider articles for Post Offices in Great Neck, Hempstead, Freeport, Long Beach, and maybe some others. Of course, I won't be back to the island until around the end of Spring 2009, so I guess I'm going to have to finish the articles I've been working on for the time being, which will mean renaming at least three of those links. ----DanTD (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Another Long Beach: Florida had a Longbeach P.O. until the island it is on was incorporated as Longboat Key, Florida and the PO name was changed to Longboat Key. clariosophic (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Architects

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Which architect(s) have designed the most listed buildings? Thanks, Grsz11 02:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The National Register's database, NRIS, is searchable by any given architect's name. Mention of that is shown at http://www.nr.nps.gov/howto_name.htm. Their sample suggests searching on "Olmstead", for one. I have used that search before, but right now i can't find the search screen page to enter the architect name into, in order to get a report of all the NRHP sites associated. You could also download the entire NRIS database and run your own reports, to find the architect(s) with the greatest number of listings. doncram (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I assume you're asking about sites on the National Register in the US, as opposed to Listed buildings in the UK. I ran a quick query against the database and here are a few numbers:
So, the way to become a popular architect in the National Register is not always to design great buildings, but to design a number of buildings that get listed in Multiple Property Submissions. (OK, I'm being facetious.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've already added one post office designed by Louis A. Simon, and I have three others in my sandbox. I want to get more info on them before I post them as articles, but one other problem I've seen was that the coordinates have moved from where I originally had them somehow. ----DanTD (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Your U.S. Post Office (Riverhead, New York) is a nice short article, including pic by User:Americasroof. What do you mean the coordinates have moved? You do know that the NRHP infobox coordinates are from NRIS, and there are some outright errors in them? Also NRIS coords reflect some systematic errors of up to 100 yards or so (depending on where u r in the U.S.) because the U.S. mapping system changed over in the mid-1980s, while many NRHP locations coords were measured off of the old U.S. Geological Survey quadrant maps. If you know the place and get exact coords from Google Earth or otherwise, you should use your corrected information. doncram (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, let me try to explain this; When I originally added the coordiantes for the Westhampton Beach Post Office, they were relativley on target on that map. In the past few days though, they've moved out into the Atlantic Ocean. I haven't checked the coordinates for my Northport and Bay Shore Post Office article sandboxes in a while, but I'm usually pretty bad with coordinates in general. The ones given for East Hampton (LIRR station) either place it off the coast of the south fork in the Atlantic Ocean, or all the way up around Hartford, Connecticut!!
As for architects, I wonder if anybody is considering writing articles on Louis A. Simon or John V. Van Pelt. If they are, somebody from Patchogue-Medford Library gave me some tips on Van Pelt that could be useful for that article, or at least interesting. ----DanTD (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
On coordinates (not architects), I don't see any problems with the coordinates for the Westhampton Beach PO (not in the current article nor in the edit history). The coords at the top right of the article for the East Hampton LIRR station also have been consistently in what looks to be the right place. (When this kind of thing happens to me, it generally means that I have too many browser tabs open and I'm getting the different pages confused!) I didn't look at the coords in the infobox for the East Hampton LIRR station, but I do recall that there has been some concern on Wikipedia talk pages that when coordinates are posted in several different places in the same article, they aren't always the same coordinates... --Orlady (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) On architects, the NPS NRHP search screen http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrname1.htm is now working for me to search for any architect. Searching on "Olmstead" yields 48 hits, not all for Frederick Law Olmstead. doncram (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I keep getting a 500 Server Error Message when I click on that. ----DanTD (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I've had a query by architect feature on the NRHP infobox generator for some time. You should probably query by last name, or "last name%first name", using the % sign as a wildcard. Oh, and it's Frederick Law Olmsted, not Olmstead. (Just to be pendantic.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Elkman! Well, then there a lot of typos on Olmstead vs. Olmsted to add to wp:NRIS info issues for reporting to the National Register then. Too bad the NRIS screen is again not working; we are lucky to have Elkman's personally donated, more reliable system available. Bookmarking, now! doncram (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Railroad & NRHP Infobox Combos that still don't work

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

I was just getting my hopes up on the ability to combine railroad infoboxes with NRHP infoboxes, when suddenly I tried to do it with Glendale (Amtrak station). Guess what; Like so many others, the "embed=yes" parameter had no effect on it. Also, the Farmingdale (LIRR station), Sea Cliff (LIRR station), and Main Street Station (Richmond) infoboxes are still broken. ----DanTD (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We haven't put in the code yet; we're still in testing phase in the sandbox. When it's implemented, we'll tell you. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be great if one of the many Administrator members of this wikiproject would agree to copy template:infobox nrhp/sandbox to template:infobox nrhp. Dudemanfellabra has jumped through a lot of hoops to get this small update ready, including taking on a new sandbox and testcases system which pretty well tests and documents that this particular update works well. Perhaps check briefly at Template talk:infobox nrhp for any recent comments, first, but I think this is ready to go and DanTD is wanting it. :) doncram (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If someone will make sure that the sandbox is only what needs to copied and will completely replace the current template, I will do it. I went to do it, but there is some code in the sandbox that I did not know whether I should copy or not. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
From glancing at the sandbox, I believe it would be all the code beginning with {{#ifeq and ending right before the <noinclude> near the end. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 03:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ruhrfisch! Hmm, IMO the administrator should only have to copy the whole thing. I didn't touch base with Dudeman, and he may not be onwiki. He can get back to Ruhrfisch after noticing this, and fixing it. doncram (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually it looks to me like the sandbox is fine. I think you can just copy the whole thing. Probably only one section has changed, but if you selectively copied just part, an error could get introduced. The entire sandbox is a full infobox, tested as a whole by the testcases. doncram (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, copy from the end of the leading comment (which provides the Sandbox template) to the end of the article. I edited the leading comment to clarify that for any administrator, from now on. doncram (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) I replaced the code with what DB said to do. Am going to run the semi-automated peer reviews and will check back in a few minutes, then calling it a night (so please check that htings work - if not, I will revert myself before calling it a night). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks! doncram (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, glad it works - I looked at a few randome NRHP articles and did not see any problems. Thanks for checking and I am logging out next. Glad it works, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't work. I just tried the new Sea Cliff (LIRR station) infobox, and all it did was shove all the text below it. ----DanTD (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: Fixed it. ----DanTD (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

New articles on the block

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Small question - I've been adding newly tagged articles (ex: National City Christian Church) under the "new articles" section (I don't know if I'm the only one doing it). Does there need to be a separate list for the newly tagged, or is everyone okay with listing them as new? On an unrelated matter, here's a new article from the Washingtonian about historic preservation, NRHPs, and the Modern architecture dilema (long, but really good). APK How you durrin? 09:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

San Antonio Missions NHP

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Need to get some confirmation on the route I'm taking here.

Mission Parkway NRHP listing > San Antonio Missions NHP > separate Missions (among others). Yes, a NRHP listing in a listing in a listing, as far as I can tell. Would it be best to put these together, probably in the largest article (SA NHP)? 25or6to4 (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting about 3 levels, i don't know of any other cases like that. I think there is need for 6 separate articles for each. Already 2 or 3 of the 4 mission articles are bigger than appropriate to merge into the NHP article, and the current setup where they are linked as "main articles" from the NHP one is correct. The stub one can grow. NRHP infoboxes can appear in the separate articles, don't usually work well in a combo article. From what u say, I assume that the NHP is also to be treated as a "main article" from the Mission Parkway NRHP that u mention, too. The NHP article should mention the Mission Parkway NRHP, explain it is a part of it. Then, you actually have them all discussed in the NHP article, in relatively compact form, with more expansion, room for photo galleries etc. in the mission articles. My 2 pence, anyhow! :) doncram (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

New template

Latest comment: 15 years ago32 comments6 people in discussion

I created a new meta-template, {{infobox2}}, which can be used to update the template for this project as well a other projects. It is mostly intended for projects that include images as well as maps in there infoboxes. This does not mean that I am about to change {{Infobox nrhp}} or {{Infobox nrhp2}}. It is just preparation for a future possible update by me or someone else. I placed the {{WikiProject Mountains}} on the template's discussion page. --droll [chat] 08:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance that some of the newer infoboxes can be combined with infoboxes from other WikiProjects, like trains, lighthouses, etcetera? I'm stll struggling to combine NRHP infoboxes with many railroad station boxes. I've had some luck with Amtrak stations(the keyword being "some"), but not that much. Two prime examples where they don't work together no matter what you do are Main Street Station (Richmond) and Plattsburgh (Amtrak station). And combining them in regional rail, light-rail, and rapid transit stations never works. The best example of this is Farmingdale (LIRR station). Now, anytime I combine the two of them, I deliberatly leave the routebox out (Greenport (LIRR station), Gravers (SEPTA station), Glencoe (Metra), etc.). ----DanTD (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess the routebox should not be used for railway stations. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Infobox example here, commented out to avoid long display -- Doncram)

I did a little codeworking, and I think I may have come up with a solution for the inability to combine these infoboxes. The Plattsburgh example to the right shows what I did.. All you have to do to fuse the infoboxes is add a parameter "embed = yes" to the nrhp infobox (currently the code is at User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox.)
About the new infobox, I don't really understand what you're trying to accomplish with this infobox.. Everything in yours can currently be achieved with Infobox nrhp. Are there any new features? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I've commented to Droll elsewhere that I think the infobox2 idea ought to be discussed at WikiProject Infoboxes wp:infobox, probably, or in some central place rather than in separate wikiprojects that use one infobox, like wp:PAREAS and here. But it is okay to let us know it exists. even if there is no centralized discussion about it. Thanks. doncram (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I just tried to use it one one of the stations I listed, and it didn't work. ----DanTD (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Another thing, your version elimiates the old name. ----DanTD (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Well umm.. can you tell me which one you tried it in? It works for me on both of the articles you said you couldn't combine.. and it looks to me like the others you listed are already combined.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really. The NRHP infoboxes tend to shrink within the railroad station ones, although less often on Amtrak station articles. I tried Plattsburgh and Farmingdale, and neither of them worked. As I stated, your version of the Plattsburg infobox isn't any good either. If I add the routeboxes to Greenport (LIRR station), Gravers (SEPTA station), and Glencoe (Metra), they will turn out like Main Street Station (Richmond), Plattsburgh (Amtrak station), and Farmingdale (LIRR station), when what they should be like are Joliet Union Station or Windsor, Connecticut (Amtrak station), or something like that. ----DanTD (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Can you show me a diff of what you're doing? The infoboxes are working perfectly for me (at least they're doing what I think you want them to do). Remember you have to add the "embed=yes" parameter to the infobox. I also fixed the code to be able to show the NRHP name instead of leaving it out. Can you give me an example of the problem you're trying to fix? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I did add the "embed=yes" parameter to the infobox. It did not work. Am I going to have to post a whole bunch of examples of what I tried to do? Somebody told me it had to do with the image sizes, but that was proven to be untrue. Another person said it had to do with shortening the routeboxes, but I've used much bigger ones where it worked just fine. ----DanTD (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I would like examples haha. Sorry I can't really seem to understand what the problem is; the infoboxes look fine to me. Can you look at this diff and tell me what you don't like about the result, please? And can you also tell me what you don't like about the infobox to the right of this conversation? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Aside from losing the color where the title "Greenport Railroad Station" is, it seems okay. There's a huge problem with the coordiantes though, but that's another issue. My problem is, I tried it with Farmingdale again, and it did absolutley nothing. There's really no need for me to show you what went wrong when I tried it. You might as well just look at the Farmingdale (LIRR station) as is, and you'll see nothing has changed. ----DanTD (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The background color thing was something I was trying, but apparently I'm the only one that likes it haha.. I've added it back in. I also edited Farmingdale, and it worked fine for me. I still don't understand what's giving you trouble with it. Oh, and about the coordinates, what's the problem? I know it doesn't relate to this, but I'm just curious. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to look at what you did with Farmingdale in a minute. But as for the problem with the coordinates in Greenport, when I try to add them to the infobox, they mark it as being in NORTHWESTERN MASSACHUSETTS!!! ----DanTD (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems like they only work on your sandbox, Dudemanfellabra. The parameter before "embed=yes" would have to be replaced with "{{User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox" rather than the standard "{{Infobox_nrhp" for them to work. I may try some others, but I can only hope this works out more often. ----DanTD (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Yes, I know they only work with my sandbox; I haven't edited nrhp code yet.. I was testing it in my sandbox before importing it into nrhp. I would advise against changing them all to my sandbox right now, though. I would wait until the code is imported into nrhp first. These edits are kind of test edits for the new code.
Also, about the coordinates thing, I just edited Greenport to show them.. worked just fine for me. Maybe you should have a look at Template:Infobox nrhp/doc.. it explains a lot about the infobox. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix involving Greenport. However, getting back to the original problem, I just tried your method with another station article(Sea Cliff (LIRR station)) and that got me just what I was trying to avoid. So I cancelled it. In any case, I hope somebody gets the coordinates for Plattsburgh (Amtrak station) soon, because when they do, I want to add it to the NRHP section of the infobox. ----DanTD (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I just edited Sea Cliff, and it worked fine for me. I found coordinates for Plattsburgh as well haha. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for both, but now that you found the coordiantes for Plattsburgh, any effort to fix the infobox for that article breaks it. I tried using your parameters, and they sent the text out of whack. I tried mining an infobox that worked right, and it knocked the coordinates into Canada. and off the map. I'm not going to touch any of them until I know it can work right, and there are tons of them I'd like to fix throughout the country. ----DanTD (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you do an edit then revert it.. then link to the diff of what you did so I can see what you're doing.. I don't know what "fixed" means apparently. They're all working perfectly fine for me.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
No, because I just tried showing one of them to you, and it didn't work for me. ----DanTD (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Ok let's try this again. What exactly is the problem you're having. I see where you edited Plattsburgh and reverted it, claiming it failed... but what was wrong with the edit you reverted. It looked perfectly fine to me.. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
No it doesn't look fine. When I tried it, the text went down on the page and left a huge white gap. When I tried to use the infobox from Windsor, Connecticut (Amtrak station) to replace it, and added Plattsburg related data, it sent the coordinates into the infobox. The way it is now, the NRHP section of the box is too small. ----DanTD (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Tell me what's wrong with this diff. I see no huge white space; I see nothing wrong with the coordinates. What is it? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Funny, it was there before. I don't know how it improved, but it was a wreck when I tried it. Either way, I'm still going to be more cautious in my attempts to fix these infoboxes. ----DanTD (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
pmfbi, but it could well be that you two are seeing different things on your screens because (a) your screen dimensions are different, (b) your display settings are different and/or (c) you're using different display fonts. --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm using the same screen as I did when I made the edit and reverted it, and I haven't made any adjustments to it. I don't know why it turned out better later on, but I'm glad it did. Anyway, since this thread was originally supposed to be about {{Infobox nrhp2}}, how would something like that work on an article like Vanderbilt Museum. ----DanTD (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Don't use Infobox nrhp2.. use the regular nrhp infobox. They're the same exact thing, and we're working on eliminating all links to nrhp2, so all articles will use the same infobox. What are you trying to do with Vanderbilt Museum, and I can help you out. I really think you should look at Template:Infobox nrhp/doc, though. It explains a lot about the syntax of the infobox and tells you pretty much everything you need to know about using it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess I can't really do much more than I've already done, unless I go back up to Long Island again, or try to find more data about it that can be thrown in, like any additional type of historic site it might be(State, local, etc.). Thanks for the offer anyhow. I did recently add nrhp2-related parameters to Pascagoula (Amtrak station), because I found out through letters from some city employees that it had both national and state historic status. I don't know if I chose the right color for Mississippi State historic sites, but I tried to make it seem state-specific, as the California one on that template was. ----DanTD (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
You can do that with Infobox nrhp now.. you don't have to use nrhp.. I edited that article as an example.. Look at the documentation. I've asked you to read it like 5 times. It explains a lot. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this all got sorted out. doncram (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Archive_25&oldid=1140388804"