Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/to do

Former version of To do list

Here's a copy of the former version of the To Do list, long in place but not very well known or consulted ever. It has some good ideas:

• Portal - expand and enhance, more…
• Blue links - Verify they are for correct region and state: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, more…
• Disambiguation - Administration Building, Alexander Hotel, Boone House, more...
  • Boundary increase/decrease entries - Create pipe links, more…
  • Verifying locations - Check for non-existent communities, more…
  • Pre-existing entries - Places may be known by another name, more…
• Stub addition - When a National Register article is ready, more…
• Incoming links - After creating a stub or article, more…
• Talk pages - Insert template on the article talk page, more…
• Pages needing cleanup - List of pages needing additional attention or cleanup, more…

This talk page can be used to propose, choose which items to show in a To Do list to be given more prominence in the WikiProject. --doncram (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Of the above, the Blue link checking and the Disambiguating tasks seem pretty much done to me, no need to direct more attention in those directions.

About creating Talk pages, I don't think that is much of an issue, because I helped arrange for a bot to go through all pages having NRHP categories to create corresponding Talk pages, a while back. It added several thousand articles to the WikiProject. If it's a problem again, the same bot could do it. Since then, a lot of county list-articles got split out, and I think those are a problem. I may be wrong, but I thot the list-articles don't have NRHP categories, or at least not an NRHP-list category, so a bot could not add Talk pages and identify them correctly as list-articles. Having a complete category of list-articles by having proper Wikiproject tags on the Talk pages would be helpful for list cleanup campaigns. --doncram (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Front Page

You are aware that this is transcluded on the front page of this project, right? You completely screwed up all the formatting there now. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No i hadn't checked how it was linked from the front page. Looking now, it appears you or someone might have made some adjustment, as it displays okay i guess as a box at right. Not sure if that is good or bad. I would be happy to return this to do list to just a simple text page that can be transcluded into the main page as before, or shown in a box there, and can also transcluded into a box that can be displayed at a Talk page. I guess i'll do that next, putting the outer Talk box coding at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/to do talkbox. That way you can re-adjust the front display however you like, okay? Sorry for messing it up. --doncram (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:NRHPtasks already exists. It does exactly what you want this new page to do.. it's even linked from the front page as well. Maybe if you looked at what's already here before creating new pages, you'd have seen that. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I believed your first statement above, literally, which now seems like an overstatement. No harm was done at all, as far as i can tell, while before i thot what i had done caused problems that were fixed somehow. It seems no fixes were needed, or at least i don't see any edits in the front page's history that seem to apply. Hey, i am trying to see that decent suggestions are given to new editors who might be interested in learning how they can contribute, that's all. The old list included items long-ago completed, and was implausible. If you have suggestions on what should be suggested to them, please say. About formatting using the "To do" image and sizing of its box, I think it works well on the wt:NRHP talk page now. Do you think the NRHPtasks version would be better applied there? I am open to that being used, instead, if others prefer that. However, if exactly the same-looking Tasks box appears on the front page and the Talk page, i expect that someone would object. I'm for having something short on the Talk page, as a short reminder/suggestion that there are things to do. --doncram (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, after you created the /to do talkbox page that does exactly the same thing as NRHPtasks, of course the version on the front page looks unaltered (with the exception of disappearing bullet points.. not sure what's causing that). My beef is that an entirely new page was created that wasn't necessary. If you haven't learned yet (and I'll be surprised if you haven't), I'm a person that doesn't like creating new pages that will be used only once or in one location. I have only two dynamic sandboxes, one for coding and one for transcluding; the other two are permanent pages – User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox1 is a POTD template used on my custom main page, User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox2. I try to make as few pages do as many things as possible (thus the massive expansion of Infobox NRHP), so I would have rather adapted NRHPtasks to have two display options – one for talk pages and one for non-talk pages such as the front page of WP:NRHP. Also, if I believe I'm going to need to create new pages, I discuss it and make sure there's no other method of doing what I want to do. 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.

I would suggest deleting this new page you've created (or NRHPtasks.. whichever one) and merging the two as I've suggested above. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care much about the exact formatting, but I thot the current ToDo version works well on the wt:NRHP talk page, being nicely lined up with the archives box currently below it. And the Tasks version works well on the wp:NRHP frontpage. Maybe you could, in fact i am sure you could, program one page to offer either formatting option, but that would be more complicated. I don't know how, offhand. If you want to do that, please go ahead. If anyone else wants to state a preference about which version of formatting works best where, please speak up! I'm more interested in what can be suggested to NRHP-interested editors. --doncram (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)