Dudemanfellabra (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
:::::I have added {{para|governing_body}} to the list of parameters that are accepted by the module that checks for unknown parameters, along with a comment that refers to this talk page for an explanation of this unusual condition. I would be interested in hearing from other project participants to determine if they think this is a reasonable way to proceed. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 02:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC) |
:::::I have added {{para|governing_body}} to the list of parameters that are accepted by the module that checks for unknown parameters, along with a comment that refers to this talk page for an explanation of this unusual condition. I would be interested in hearing from other project participants to determine if they think this is a reasonable way to proceed. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 02:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::::Well that escalated quickly. I agree with Jonesey95's addition of the deprecated parameter to the list of "valid" parameters, along with the comment explaining its presence, and I'm not entirely sure how WW applies here either. Even if it does by some technical definition, I still think the reporting was a bit hasty and uncalled for. |
|||
::::::I would also like to point out that there are a lot of articles with infoboxes using the parameter {{para|architect OR builder}}, which was a compromise between Doncram and Elkman in his infobox generator since NRIS does not distinguish between the two. This category helps track those now, so I think it is pretty useful indeed.--[[User:Dudemanfellabra|Dudemanfellabra]] ([[User talk:Dudemanfellabra|talk]]) 04:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:43, 7 May 2016
National Register of Historic Places Project‑class | |||||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
This library building was supposedly just listed on the NRHP. I added a source to this newly-created article, but if someone is aware of an official source, please feel free to add or help expand the article appropriately. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Probably tomorrow's Weekly List. — Ipoellet (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Great! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's on the January 30th pending list [1]. 25or6to4 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I added the link as a ref for the time being, knowing it can be replaced very soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's on the April 1st Weekly List Einbierbitte (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I believe the article has been updated accordingly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's on the April 1st Weekly List Einbierbitte (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I added the link as a ref for the time being, knowing it can be replaced very soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's on the January 30th pending list [1]. 25or6to4 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Great! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Attention requested at arbitration amendment request
Hello. The attention of members of this WikiProject is requested at the recently-filed Doncram arbitration amendment request seeking to lift arbitration sanctions on Doncram (talk · contribs). Please review the amendment request at your convenience, and if so inclined, give a statement addressing why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Titles
Over the past several months, I've made several page moves of NRHP buildings where the previous title is some combination of current and historic names. Examples include Evergreen (Rocky Mount, Virginia), General Squier Memorial Park, and E. S. Swayze Drugstore. I haven't seen anything in the style guide specifically about combining names in the article title, but it seems like common sense should be applied to cases like these. I really doubt anyone has ever spoken the term "Dryden Community Country Club–General Squier Historic Park Complex", and certainly not "Swayze, E. S., Drugstore/Otisville Mason Lodge No. 401". Yes, these are the titles for the NRIS pages, but a quick look at the nomination forms shows they are just alternate names. Besides, these already violate conciseness and recognizability. It seems like there is too much reliance on just creating titles based on the NRIS titles and not enough on common sense. kennethaw88 • talk 04:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Our style guide agrees with you. From the Naming conventions section:
- "This does not mean, however, that the title of an article about a property listed on the NRHP should always be the name listed on the National Register. Article naming is guided by Wikipedia:Naming conventions. That Wikipedia policy indicates that the article title should be the most recognizable name to the greatest number of English speakers. Accordingly, sometimes the NRHP name for a site will not be the name of the article. For example, a building may now be known by a different name than it had when it was listed on the NRHP. If the article about a site listed on the NRHP has a different name than appears on the National Register, a page with the NRHP name should be created to redirect to the article."
- --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with both of you, but while we're on the topic, what should we do about cases where the National Register uses an inconsistent naming convention for similar buildings? This is most common with railroad stations (e.g. Chicago and North Western Railway Depot and Chicago and North Western Railroad Depot, where there are two disambiguation pages and seven or eight naming variations for the same railway), but I've seen this happen with post offices and courthouses too. I'm in favor of moving relevant pages to standardized titles; we already usually do this with post offices, but it would make a lot more sense (and be easier for disambiguation) for all railroad stations of a particular company to spell the company's name in the same way, and we could weed out those last few articles that spell their title "Court House" instead of "Courthouse". TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Some sort of standardization for archaeological sites would be good too, especially handling of Smithsonian trinomials. I've been wanting to draft and propose some style guidelines about that. Hopefully I'll find time soon. — Ipoellet (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm so glad this issue is being raised because it's been bothering me too. I think we owe it to readers to use a WP:COMMONNAME wherever sensible rather than the jargonistic mouthfuls the NRHP often cranks out. To me that's more than just standardizing, though. Standardizing the carrier names for railway stations would be a nice improvement, but they still wouldn't represent the commonly used name. Most stations in the U.S. are usually referred to as the [town name] Depot. I know that would be a big change that poses new disambiguation challenges, but surely having articles for the "Wheaton Depot" or "Springfield Depot" would be closer to what someone might actually search by. -McGhiever (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- In regards to your last point, would it make more sense to apply WP:USSTATION to historic railroad stations too? It would result in much simpler titles (though it would also create a few disambiguation messes when a city has a historic and current station that served the same line, like Wilmette station and Chicago and Northwestern Depot (Wilmette, Illinois)). TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- This really ought to be addressed by whoever maintains WP:USSTATION. Since we're not in the business of naming conventions (aside from our lists), we ought to let those folks know that we have a big pile of articles that don't match the convention. I'm unaware of naming conventions for archaeological sites; it's time to formulate one. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#Historical stations; feel free to join in there. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- This really ought to be addressed by whoever maintains WP:USSTATION. Since we're not in the business of naming conventions (aside from our lists), we ought to let those folks know that we have a big pile of articles that don't match the convention. I'm unaware of naming conventions for archaeological sites; it's time to formulate one. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- In regards to your last point, would it make more sense to apply WP:USSTATION to historic railroad stations too? It would result in much simpler titles (though it would also create a few disambiguation messes when a city has a historic and current station that served the same line, like Wilmette station and Chicago and Northwestern Depot (Wilmette, Illinois)). TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- The problem with depots arises with the consultants/archaeologists/architectural historians/historians who nominate the properties to the NRHP and who have no background in railroads. There is scant guidance to naming in the NR Bulletin 16a [2]. As for archaeological sites, some states (California, Arizona, Southern Nevada) do not use the Smithsonian trinomial, we'll have to take that into account, too. I would support some standardization. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have no experience working with archaeological sites in the non-trinomial states, so I don't know what to do with those. In all states, we should use the site's recognised name when it exists. For example, Bedford Village Archeological Site instead of Site 36BD90, and Canfield Island Site instead of Archeological Site 36 LY 37. What should be the article names for sites known only by trinomials? I'd say "Archaeological Site [number]"; it's simpler than "Archaeological Site No. [number]" and clearer than "Site [number]". Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- And then there's "Archeological" (seemingly the NPS's preferred spelling) vs. "Archaeological", which seems to be more commonly used in wider contexts here. Magic♪piano 12:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that we should use WP:USSTATION guidelines. For archaeo sites, I think the common name should be used. If there is a numerical designation, maybe that should be included as a parenthetical? If the site is only known by number, then I like the suggestion of "Archaeological Site [number]". Maybe we should include WP:ARCHAEO in the discussion. As for the spelling, I don't have a preference. I use the 'a' and the 'a' is also used here. As for California, the designation is not standard. The names vary by the age of the designation and the CHRIS information center assigning the name. In some names they use the state designation (CA) or (4), or leave it off entirely. In some cases the county abbreviation is all caps (SBR) or mixed upper and lower case (SBr). Then there are sites that don't use the California designation at all. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- In most cases, throwing the trinomial into the article name would be unhelpful. Angel Mounds works well; why would we want to retitle it Angel Site (12 VG 1)? And how would Ramey Mound (15 BH 1) be better than Ramey Mound? Of course, the trinomial might be a good method of disambiguation (this was done with Park Site (36LA96), because "Park Site" is such a generic title), but including it in the title wouldn't normally be a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that we should use WP:USSTATION guidelines. For archaeo sites, I think the common name should be used. If there is a numerical designation, maybe that should be included as a parenthetical? If the site is only known by number, then I like the suggestion of "Archaeological Site [number]". Maybe we should include WP:ARCHAEO in the discussion. As for the spelling, I don't have a preference. I use the 'a' and the 'a' is also used here. As for California, the designation is not standard. The names vary by the age of the designation and the CHRIS information center assigning the name. In some names they use the state designation (CA) or (4), or leave it off entirely. In some cases the county abbreviation is all caps (SBR) or mixed upper and lower case (SBr). Then there are sites that don't use the California designation at all. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- And then there's "Archeological" (seemingly the NPS's preferred spelling) vs. "Archaeological", which seems to be more commonly used in wider contexts here. Magic♪piano 12:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have no experience working with archaeological sites in the non-trinomial states, so I don't know what to do with those. In all states, we should use the site's recognised name when it exists. For example, Bedford Village Archeological Site instead of Site 36BD90, and Canfield Island Site instead of Archeological Site 36 LY 37. What should be the article names for sites known only by trinomials? I'd say "Archaeological Site [number]"; it's simpler than "Archaeological Site No. [number]" and clearer than "Site [number]". Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm so glad this issue is being raised because it's been bothering me too. I think we owe it to readers to use a WP:COMMONNAME wherever sensible rather than the jargonistic mouthfuls the NRHP often cranks out. To me that's more than just standardizing, though. Standardizing the carrier names for railway stations would be a nice improvement, but they still wouldn't represent the commonly used name. Most stations in the U.S. are usually referred to as the [town name] Depot. I know that would be a big change that poses new disambiguation challenges, but surely having articles for the "Wheaton Depot" or "Springfield Depot" would be closer to what someone might actually search by. -McGhiever (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Some sort of standardization for archaeological sites would be good too, especially handling of Smithsonian trinomials. I've been wanting to draft and propose some style guidelines about that. Hopefully I'll find time soon. — Ipoellet (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with both of you, but while we're on the topic, what should we do about cases where the National Register uses an inconsistent naming convention for similar buildings? This is most common with railroad stations (e.g. Chicago and North Western Railway Depot and Chicago and North Western Railroad Depot, where there are two disambiguation pages and seven or eight naming variations for the same railway), but I've seen this happen with post offices and courthouses too. I'm in favor of moving relevant pages to standardized titles; we already usually do this with post offices, but it would make a lot more sense (and be easier for disambiguation) for all railroad stations of a particular company to spell the company's name in the same way, and we could weed out those last few articles that spell their title "Court House" instead of "Courthouse". TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Outsized maps
Naulakha (Rudyard Kipling House) includes one of your infoboxes. It's nice to have the map, but in the case of "tall" states like Vermont, the map is grossly large, and gets in the way of the material in the article. Is there a way to get rid of it in this article, or, better, to resize it so it doesn't take up so much real estate? Lou Sander (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- We should probably use county maps for Vermont (and other tall states), but I don't think they exist in a form usable in the infobox for Vermont. Blanking the template's locmapin parameter will remove the map. Magic♪piano 20:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Alternatively, if you don't want to get rid of the map entirely, Infobox NRHP has a parameter
|map_width=
that you can set to be the width of the map in pixels you want. I think the default is 235, so making it smaller would shrink the height as well.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Alternatively, if you don't want to get rid of the map entirely, Infobox NRHP has a parameter
- Making it narrower did the trick. IMHO, using county maps wouldn't be as good a solution. Now, is there a way to make the map show up somewhere else in the infobox, maybe below the Location or Coordinates, so it doesn't clash with the image of the house? Lou Sander (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are some interesting maps used in various articles about New Jersey boroughs, I've noticed; they show the location of the borough within the county, and in an inset show the location of the county within the state. Might that be something to try designing for other states as well? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- For multi-level maps like that, Frietjes used an interesting trick at Pendleton Center for the Arts that is apparently already part of our infobox. I, at any rate, was not previously aware we could do that. — Ipoellet (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I just discovered that myself - wonder if it's a new feature. It's not an infobox trick, exactly - it's more of a map trick, in the way it's coded. I like it very much and hope it becomes standard. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ipoellet and Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the multilevel map feature should work for any template which used module:location map. the feature was added by Jackmcbarn in December 2014. just delimit the list of maps with '#'. Frietjes (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- These are very good developments, and I've just become aware of them. There's something else that has bothered me about Wikipedia's handling of geographical information: There's a need for a simple way to locate smaller locations with regard to nearby or well-known large cities. For example, Golden, Colorado is a suburb of Denver, but you have to get deep into the article to know that. Because it's in a different county, the maps don't help you to locate it. On the other hand, Butler, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Pittsburgh, is revealed as such in the first paragraph. All this depends on the editor knowing it and spelling it out. Roswell, New Mexico is about 200 miles from Albuquerque, but unless you are familiar with New Mexico geography, you haven't any idea about that. I guess what I'm looking for is some easy/automatic way to express that "tiny town A" is X miles from "big city B". I appreciate that this is a big order. Maybe it could be done somehow through maps. Maybe there could be some sort of template where you could enter both cities and get the proper text. Such a thing would be useful in the very complete Geography section of Artesia, New Mexico. I see the need for something like this, but I don't know enough to implement it or get it implemented by somebody. Lou Sander (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ipoellet and Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the multilevel map feature should work for any template which used module:location map. the feature was added by Jackmcbarn in December 2014. just delimit the list of maps with '#'. Frietjes (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I just discovered that myself - wonder if it's a new feature. It's not an infobox trick, exactly - it's more of a map trick, in the way it's coded. I like it very much and hope it becomes standard. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- For multi-level maps like that, Frietjes used an interesting trick at Pendleton Center for the Arts that is apparently already part of our infobox. I, at any rate, was not previously aware we could do that. — Ipoellet (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are some interesting maps used in various articles about New Jersey boroughs, I've noticed; they show the location of the borough within the county, and in an inset show the location of the county within the state. Might that be something to try designing for other states as well? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Making it narrower did the trick. IMHO, using county maps wouldn't be as good a solution. Now, is there a way to make the map show up somewhere else in the infobox, maybe below the Location or Coordinates, so it doesn't clash with the image of the house? Lou Sander (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
There is {{Location map+}}, which lets you plot more than one point on a map at a time. You do have to manually enter in the coordinates of each point and choose an appropriate map to display, so it's far from automatic, and it doesn't automatically display distances, but it's at least a start in the direction you want to go, I think. An example of its usage can be found on many earthquake pages to give reference points to nearby major cities, e.g. April 2015 Nepal earthquake.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Map of county NRHPs?
Is there an easy way to see a map of the NRHP locations for a county? It would help a lot when planning a visit.
Yesterday I went ti Jacksonville to photograph some sites. I made a short list to photograph but I didn't have a lot of time to plan a good order to visit them. Sometimes I left one to do another one, and then when I went to another one, it was right around the corner from the previous one. I took photos of one building that I didn't know was on the NRHP until I got back. And while I was across the street from one of them, I found that I was right in front of another one that was not on my list. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- On most county listing pages, there's a box on the top right. It allows you to view locations via OSM (whatever that is), Google, or Bing. It does depend on the coordinates on the page being accurate, but there's been a lot of maintenance in the past to correct that. I noticed you hit a bunch of the Jax sites. If you need help with planning for Florida trips, I've visited most of them and can give tips. Because downtown Jax can be so confusing, I'd park in one central-ish spot and then walk around to different spots. I'd pre-print detailed maps off Google and carry them with me so I'd know exactly where to go. Let me know if you need any help. :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 20:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Btw, if you ever get to Jackson County, skip the Robert Lee Norton House. It's not at the coordinates listed (I've looked multiple times). It must have been moved or been demolished, but I can find no records of that. Which makes me think. I know we don't do OR for articles, but when we find things like this when we're photo-roadtripping, would it be good to note it somewhere? Maybe the article talk page, if there is one? --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 20:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've put a note in the description field that says "Likely demolished (see talk page)" with "talk page" wikilinked. That way it's noted on the county list but your OR discovery can be fleshed out on the talk page. You can see two examples next to each other at National Register of Historic Places listings in Redwood County, Minnesota at positions 8 & 9. -McGhiever (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- When I'm out NRHP-photographing and find that a historic building's gone, I'll shoot the vacant lot, modern building, or whatever's in the given location. Once I've double-checked the nom form, to make sure that the address wasn't yet another NRIS error, I'll put a note in the "Description" field of the list article, with a link to the photo as part of the citation. I did this, for instance, with the First State Bank building in Shattuck, Oklahoma (see Ellis County list and diff). This may verge on OR, but since our list articles are primarily tools for members of the project, I can reconcile it with my Wikiconscience. — Ammodramus (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't include anything demolition-related in the Summary field, but I always include a photo of the site, whether it's an empty lot or newer building, or something else. For the reader who's desirous of visiting the site, having a photo of its current appearance is far better than giving the appearance that nobody's gone there to get a photo yet. Last year, I was in Philadelphia to get photos for my personal collection, and because I saw File:NE corner Pine and Quince.JPG (uploaded by Smallbones), I knew that the building had been replaced, i.e. I hadn't accidentally gotten the wrong location. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- When I'm out NRHP-photographing and find that a historic building's gone, I'll shoot the vacant lot, modern building, or whatever's in the given location. Once I've double-checked the nom form, to make sure that the address wasn't yet another NRIS error, I'll put a note in the "Description" field of the list article, with a link to the photo as part of the citation. I did this, for instance, with the First State Bank building in Shattuck, Oklahoma (see Ellis County list and diff). This may verge on OR, but since our list articles are primarily tools for members of the project, I can reconcile it with my Wikiconscience. — Ammodramus (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've put a note in the description field that says "Likely demolished (see talk page)" with "talk page" wikilinked. That way it's noted on the county list but your OR discovery can be fleshed out on the talk page. You can see two examples next to each other at National Register of Historic Places listings in Redwood County, Minnesota at positions 8 & 9. -McGhiever (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Can someone help confirm this?
In Jacksonville, National Register of Historic Places listings in Duval County, Florida, the W. A. Knight Building entry links to Greenleaf & Crosby Building and it shows a photo of that building. But according to the NRHP form, the W. A. Knight Building is a three-story building next to it. I think that the confusion comes from the Knight Building also being called the Greenleaf and Crosby Annex (see the NRHP form). The Greenleaf Building article has the Knight Building NRHP. So it seems to me that the Knight Building needs to have a separate article and the NRHP info moved there. Also, the photo on the county listing is wrong, but the commons has two photos of the correct building. Is this right? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- You might want to check with @Mathew105601:, since he's the one who moved it. He does a lot of editing of Jacksonville articles. I took the original pictures and later renamed them, thinking I got the wrong building. Maybe I was right the first time? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 07:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Here's something. [3] --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 07:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, that's what happened. Originally I thought the taller one was the Knight building. Then I clarified later. I name changed those to Greenleaf. I did take a couple shots of the Knight building, tho they're not great. Still usable until something better comes along. [4] --‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 07:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- The same thing happened to me. I was photographing the Elks Club from across the street and I noticed an NRHP plaque for the Knight Building. To be the taller Greenleaf & Crosby building looked much more interesting, so that is the one I photographed! (assuming that it was the NRGP one) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
National Register of Historic Places listings in Geneva County, Alabama
@Hmains: is trying to delete the redirect National Register of Historic Places listings in Geneva County, Alabama since the county has no listings in it. The redirect points to National Register of Historic Places listings in Alabama#Geneva County, which includes the text "There are no sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Geneva County." This is valid information to have in case someone is searching directly for listings in that county. I have reverted his edits twice and don't want to break 3RR. Can anyone else weigh in here? There are redirects for every single county in the country, even if they are empty, and deleting this one (especially a speedy delete) makes no sense in my opinion. At worst there should be an RFD.
Also, I'm not sure if anyone really cares enough to contest anything, but I'm sure you've seen many of his edits in your watchlist making bot-like changes to category trees. Personally I find this all a bit annoying and unnecessary, and I feel like the number of edits involved warrants a discussion here at the project talk page, but I don't really care about categories enough to want to put in the effort it would take to stop him/slow him down.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- You should notice that I left the redirect in place. You don't have to further edit anything. Hmains (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm glad this seems to be resolved... but Hmains adding a db-author tag to a redirect they didn't create, with the edit summary "refine category structure", and reverting to restore it twice instead of taking it to RfD is the sort of behavior that makes me wonder if we should be taking a closer look at their other edits. (Though Dudemanfellabra is not alone in not caring too much about categories; I get the impression that categories in general are managed by a handful of people and mostly ignored by everyone else, which can lead to unpleasant findings when the rest of the encyclopedia pokes its collective head in there to see what's going on.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Error message and tracking category for unsupported parameters (Infobox NRHP)
I have added error tracking for unsupported parameters to {{Infobox NRHP}}. See Category:Pages using infobox NRHP with unknown parameters. A red error message appears when you Preview the article, between the edit screen and the rendered preview. In the category, the articles are sorted by the name of the parameter that is unsupported.
There are 53,000 articles in the error category, which makes me think that there may be an inconsistency between how the template is commonly used and how the template is coded, or that I missed some parameters when I added the check. If the latter is the case, ping me here and I will fix the problem ASAP.
It looks like the vast majority of articles are being added to the category by |governing_body=
, which was removed from the template in January 2016. If there is consensus to remove this template parameter from these infoboxes, you might want to file a Bot request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)typo fix—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- It seems like it might have been better to just not display the governing body, rather than removing the parameter. If the parameter removal is to remain, it might also be a good idea for @Elkman to modify his infobox generator in addition to having a bot remove it from existing uses. Magic♪piano 12:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why do we need to track these? I can understand tracking some items, because errors can sometimes reflect a typo in the parameter name or the inclusion of information that needs to be added to an existing category, but when we have tens of thousands of errors due to the abolition of a single parameter, the tracking seems rather pointless. I've restored the
|governing_body=
parameter, but with <!-- comment marks --> surrounding the transcluded information, so it doesn't display anything. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why do we need to track these? I can understand tracking some items, because errors can sometimes reflect a typo in the parameter name or the inclusion of information that needs to be added to an existing category, but when we have tens of thousands of errors due to the abolition of a single parameter, the tracking seems rather pointless. I've restored the
- Consensus was to remove the parameter from the template, so it was removed in January (see link to discussion above). Restoring it to the template is against that consensus.
- I started the discussion above to let the editors here know that the vast majority of articles in the error category were there because of the
|governing_body=
parameter and to suggest that they might want to file a bot request to follow through on the removal of that parameter from articles. Adding the parameter back to the template is counterproductive to that effort, since the category provides a straightforward way for a bot to choose articles to search for the removed parameter.
- I started the discussion above to let the editors here know that the vast majority of articles in the error category were there because of the
- The "tens of thousands of errors" do not affect regular readers or editors, since the only place the error appears is in Preview or in a list of hidden categories, the latter of which regular folks do not see by default.
- In the meantime, other erroneous parameters will be sorted in the error-tracking category by the name of the parameter, so editors can work through the errors that fall outside of the articles listed under "G". The category page has a table of contents that makes it easy to do so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- When you see the discussion linked above, you'll see who proposed it; don't jump on me for going against consensus. This is a technical method to get around a bad situation, not an attempt to overturn a discussion that I started and supported. If you see the discussion linked above, you'll also note that there was consensus against having a bot remove it, because it could simply be ignored. Don't force us to adopt your ideas of how this template ought to be used. You also may wish to review the wheel-warring policy, which specifies that re-undoing an action of this sort is grounds to have your user rights removed. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Really, Nyttend, you're reporting this as wheel-warring without waiting for this good faith discussion to proceed? I am surprised. I have reviewed the wheel-warring policy, and I look forward to an explanation of how it applies to this situation.
- When you see the discussion linked above, you'll see who proposed it; don't jump on me for going against consensus. This is a technical method to get around a bad situation, not an attempt to overturn a discussion that I started and supported. If you see the discussion linked above, you'll also note that there was consensus against having a bot remove it, because it could simply be ignored. Don't force us to adopt your ideas of how this template ought to be used. You also may wish to review the wheel-warring policy, which specifies that re-undoing an action of this sort is grounds to have your user rights removed. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- In the meantime, other erroneous parameters will be sorted in the error-tracking category by the name of the parameter, so editors can work through the errors that fall outside of the articles listed under "G". The category page has a table of contents that makes it easy to do so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have added
|governing_body=
to the list of parameters that are accepted by the module that checks for unknown parameters, along with a comment that refers to this talk page for an explanation of this unusual condition. I would be interested in hearing from other project participants to determine if they think this is a reasonable way to proceed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have added
- Well that escalated quickly. I agree with Jonesey95's addition of the deprecated parameter to the list of "valid" parameters, along with the comment explaining its presence, and I'm not entirely sure how WW applies here either. Even if it does by some technical definition, I still think the reporting was a bit hasty and uncalled for.
- I would also like to point out that there are a lot of articles with infoboxes using the parameter
|architect OR builder=
, which was a compromise between Doncram and Elkman in his infobox generator since NRIS does not distinguish between the two. This category helps track those now, so I think it is pretty useful indeed.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)