Template talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

National Register of Historic Places Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

{{editprotected}}

Want to add a featured list parameter. Category is already created. The text (preferably after the FA parameter) should be:

|fl|Fl|FL=[[Category:FL-Class National Register of Historic Places articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Thanks. -Ebyabe (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Happy‑melon 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

To support the newly created project portal, could the following changes be made, please:

| [[Image:Mountrushmore.jpg|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|30px|50px}}]]

|{{Portal|National Register of Historic Places|boxsize=150}}

This article is within the scope of the '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|National Register of Historic Places WikiProject]]''', a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the [[United States|U.S.]] [[National Register of Historic Places]].

|redirect|Redirect=[[Category:Redirect-Class National Register of Historic Places articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]

|Portal|portal=[[Category:Portal-Class National Register of Historic Places pages|{{PAGENAME}}]]

|NA|Na|na=[[Category:Non-article National Register of Historic Places pages|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Essentially, stick the portal bits between the pre-existing parts as shown above. Portal category already created. Any questions, please to ask. Thanks! --Ebyabe (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Happy‑melon 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Could the prior portal edits be undone for the time being, please? They can always be un-undone later. Thanks! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a problem, seeing as you requested them all. However, I'm not sure which version you want to go back to... please clarify, unless another admin knows —αlεx•mullεr 11:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the {{portal}} link - the presence of the portal parameter shouldn't be a problem, but rather allow you to keep track of the pages involved in building your portal. You certainly don't want to have to recategorise them once it's "finished". Re-add the tag when you think you're ready for the portal link to be restored. Happy‑melon 12:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Please add the following parameter between the "start" and "B" ones. The matching category has already been created:

|c|C=[[Category:B-Class National Register of Historic Places articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Cheers! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done with one small modification: I added the category as [[Category:C-Class National Register of Historic Places articles|{{PAGENAME}}]], as it appears that you meant to refer to this category. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 02:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact I did. Thanks for catching that. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the template be modified to identify infoboxes that are missing? This is a simple but time consuming task that can be easily be identified and placed in a category for any editor interested in cleanup to undertake. I'd suggest using 'template' as the keyword. If no is passed then add it to the category and maybe make a note in the infobox. If yes or blank then ignore. We could do the same for articles without images. However in that case, the request should be added to the appropriate state missing images category if possible. If not then one for the project. I'd suggest using 'image' as the keyword. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're getting at. In wp:NRHP, there are a couple existing wikiproject to-do lists, which could include infoboxes needed. However, for NRHP infoboxes unlike those for many other wikiprojects, it is very easy to generate pretty good ones using the Elkman tools. So to me it seems easier just to generate the infobox for a given article, rather than putting it on a list and building an administrative structure. Also, about working in reqphoto features into the NRHP template, that is somewhat addressed by the Elkman NRHP generator including a properly formatted reqphoto for the corresponding talk page. This regular reqphoto is part of most new NRHP stub articles. And further, the extensive list-table system from List of National Register of Historic Places entries down, and rapidly being elaborated into table formats in many states such as List of RHPs in NY, List of RHPs in WI, etc., is providing tables to hold thumbnail photos (although that has not yet been developed in, say, List of RHPs in NV. The blanks in those tables are effectively photo requests, and are working very well for many local photographers. I'd be happy to help develop the Nevada list-article along those lines to illustrate, assuming you might be interested. Would this change your perspective about need for other system changes via this NRHP template? Happy to discuss more here, could be worth mentioning at wt:NRHP, too. doncram (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Per discussion at wt:NRHP, lastly specifically here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#message for WikiProject NRHP Talk page template, could the modified template at: Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Feb2009 be copied in, please? Only the "February 2009 update" section is different. The wording was drafted, revised by me, and further revised (also with formatting improvements) by Dudemanfellabra. The wording of the message is now "February 2009 update: the NRHP infobox code has been updated and now allows editors more control over map display and other features. See Template:Infobox nrhp/doc for new syntax." I think it is fine now, ready for prime time. I'd hope for this to be displayed for 2 months or so, then the template can revert to version without this special notice. TIA, doncram (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through and tidied the code a bit. No functionality has changed except that "automatically assessed" articles are not now supported as it was apparent that they weren't being used. (The relevant category didn't exist.) Martin^Msgj 18:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sounds fine. Yes i am v. active in wp:NRHP but not aware of that "automatically assessed" being available or ever being used, so fine to delete it. doncram (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Just a note that the documentation mentions peer review, but the banner doesn't support it at the moment. Please amend the documentation or post here again if you want it implemented. Regards, Martin^msgj 21:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it has run for a month and a half, and it is about 2 months since the change was implemented. So, the announcement is stale now, and could it be removed? Specifically, to remove the announcement that "February 2009 update: the NRHP infobox code has been updated and now allows editors more control over map display and other features. See Template:Infobox nrhp/doc for new syntax." Note, there were other changes to the template implemented in the change that added this; only the announcement should be dropped now.

About peer review mention, I am not sure what is being referred to, something in Template:Infobox nrhp/doc ? Anyhow, peer review has not been active within the NRHP wikiproject so there should be no specific mention of it, IMHO. doncram (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Replace IMAGE_LEFT image "File:Mountrushmore.jpg" with "File:Dean_Franklin_-_06.04.03_Mount_Rushmore_Monument_(by-sa).jpg". Clearer and better image. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look so good when it's so small. Might be better to upload a crop of the new image to use here. --- RockMFR 03:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A cropped version would look better. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: nullifying the template until the crop is done. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(discussion held at template talk:infobox nrhp moved to here) {{editprotected}}

The current infobox states: "This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places." and then a class rating statement such as "This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale."

How about linking to the Talk page of the Wikiproject, as many other Wikiproject's templates do (such as WikiProject Pennsylvania, for one). Suggested new wording, adapting from Pennsylvania's:

"This article is within the scope of National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks."

--doncram (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually have "a list of open tasks"? If so, maybe we should link to it in the changed text. If not -- I couldn't find one, except for Historic Districts, in a quick look -- then maybe we shouldn't promise what we don't have? Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/to do. It's hardly ever updated though.. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thanks for finding that. I'd like to revive the To Do list and post it, or an abbreviated version with link to full version, somewhere near the top of the wt:NRHP Talk page. I do think it is very good to have a list of suggested tasks always posted, especially as there are so many things wanted but undone:

• take photos and upload
• revisit HABS pics to crop black borders and improve referencing, add more HABS pics
• respond to requests for article ratings
• rate articles having no rating assigned
• clean up items in NRHP infobox cleanup category
• clean up items in NRHP dabs needing cleanup category
• check states for county list-articles missing Talk page and Wikiproject tag (there are many)
• create "good stub" articles where NRHP docs available on-line (in Virginia, New York, Connecticut, more, with suggested pointer to which counties being worked on)
• take on task of corresponding with a state and National Register staff over info issues
• run peer reviews / collaborations on higher importance NRHP articles

More? That's from memory, not looking at the old To Do list. --doncram (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new To Do / Task list for the Wikiproject has been established and posted at the Talk page for a couple days. A couple editors made changes. The use of the To Do / Task list seems stable. By this edit i want to now make "Edit protected" request to change the display language to (same as stated above):

change from old/current version: |MAIN_TEXT = This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.

change TO this new version: |MAIN_TEXT = This article is within the scope of National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

--doncram (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion. what does this project banner discussion has to do on the infobox talk page ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(end discussion that was moved from template talk:infobox nrhp )

Oops, yeah, now moved the discussion to here.

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The code shows indication of "infobox=" and "attention=" fields which seem to be about allowing editors to mark that an infobox and/or attention is needed for the article. How are those to be used in practice? The documentation does not show these being used in the "full version" of applying the template. The "infobox needed" aspect does show up in the drop-down towards the top of the documentation, however, but without indication how to use it. At Talk:Stallings-Carpenter House, I tried adding "infobox=yes", "infobox=no", "infobox=1" already, and get no apparent result. How can i use that? Thanks for your consideration. --doncram (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figured it out i guess from the metawhatever page. Seems it is "attention=yes" but "needs-infobox=yes" which work. --doncram (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to learn how to steal from other projects. ;-) Vegaswikian (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a CFD about Category:NRHP architects, Category:NRHP builders, and Category:NRHP engineers, which are currently hidden, administrative categories, it was suggested that the Template:WikiProject NRHP should be changed to accomodate tracking about them instead. Could parameters architect, builder, engineer be added here? --doncram 09:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two quotes from the CFD:

• If these are WikiProject tracking categories, then they should be converted to talk pages. It would be easy enough to do with a bot once Template:WikiProject NRHP has been modified to support three additional parameters—architect, builder and engineer—such that specifying {{WikiProject NRHP|class=|importance=|architect=yes}} would populate Category:NRHP architects, and likewise for the other two parameters and categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It would need to be a three-stage transition: editing the project banner to accomodate the new parameter(s); adding the parameter to all affected talk pages (510, currently) so as to populate the categories with talk pages; and removing the articles. I can do the first step manually and the second using AutoWikiBrowser (or at least write the request for a bot task), and Cydebot can be prompted to complete the third step. If the addition of three parameters might prompt dissatisfaction, then it is possible to use just one: instead of three new parameters—architect, builder and engineer—that are activated by "=yes", it is possible to add one parameter—let's say ... tracking—that takes values of "=architect", "=builder" and "=engineer". The code would be a bit more complex but the "prominence" of the tracking function would be limited. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of persons who served as both architect and builder, particularly of frontier/early days, and some engineers who were also architects. So I think having architect=yes, builder=yes, and engineer=yes, allowing multiple designations for one person/article, is helpful. --doncram 09:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think we should include architects, engineers, and builders under the scope of the project unless they were relevant to the register itself or outstandingly prolific. Just because someone happened to design a building that's listed on the register doesn't mean they're relevant to that register. This is something WP:Architecture should deal with.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have the impression WP:Architecture doesn't want to do articles about individual architect practitioners, besides truly major contributors of new architectural styles, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't want to cover builders or engineers. The significance of architects, builders, engineers for the NRHP is indicated by their being specifically tracked in the NRIS database which just hits a few highlights. Quite a number of them have specific NRHP studies about their works as MPS/TR studies. I don't want to set an inbetween standard and have perennial arguments about how much salience is needed for an architect/builder/engineer to have an article or for the article to be adopted by the NRHP wikiproject; I would like to simply go by whether the person is credited in NRHP documentation (NRHP nom docs; NRIS). --doncram 14:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dudemanfellabra, maybe we mostly do agree. This is only about architects, engineers, builders who have Wikipedia articles, which includes the prolific ones and should usually not include unimportant persons. It does include some pretty obscure persons, who might now only be remembered for having built strange rock houses that happen to survive and be listed on the National Register. There is mutual support, mutual notability for small collections of obscure NRHP-listed works and their obscure creators. My rough rule of thumb is that if a person has 5 or more NRHP places associated, then he/she probably is wikipedia-notable, and that I am probably not interested if the person has less. I do decide NOT to start articles about persons having just one or two NRHP places, such as one Valdemar Gram or Vlademar Gram, builder of NRHP-listed Devils Lake Carnegie Library and NRHP-listed Locke Block, for example. Does that help you?

Anyhow, this is about subdividing the current Category:Related-importance National Register of Historic Places articles which currently has 847 articles, into separate categories for about 442 engineers, 59 architects, 14 builders, and leaving the remainder as just "Related". The remainder are all contributing buildings and NRHP-delisted places, I think. The point is, these are already in the NRHP Wikiproject; i just want to subdivide that category and make the Talk page template more useful. This allows removal of the duplicative, slightly non-standard use of Category:NRHP architects etc. in the mainpages, which apparently would be preferred by CFD experts. --doncram 17:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE IN 2019: the mainspace categories survived the 2012 AFD but were deleted after a new CFD in 2018. The lists of members of the categories were then copied into a project page. What's needed now is for the categories to be created now as Talk page categories within this banner template, to be triggered by "architect=yes", "builder=yes", and/or "engineer=yes". There are definitely some articles where a person acted as both architect and builder, for example, so binary choices for each one are needed. I and maybe a few other editors have assumed that these refinements to the banner template would be made, and have put "architect=yes", etc., into many articles. The only editor who took a narrow view to what belongs in WikiProject NRHP, and who objected to this being done previously is no longer active in Wikipedia. Since then I think there have been numerous affirmations of the usefulness of having articles about all architects who have numerous NRHP-listed works. I personally have been "thanked" dozens or hundreds of times for NRHP architect articles that I created and/or for my related editing in NRHP place articles. I think there is in general approval/consensus that these are part of the WikiProject, and good, and there is no reason at all not to have these binary tags added to the banner template. Could this be done now, please? I will wait for comments, and then hope to proceed by putting in an edit request to implement this, relatively soon. --Doncram (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the early stages of developing a Lua-based replacement for {{WPBannerMeta}}, and I would appreciate peoples ideas for features. If there is anything that you have wanted to do with your WikiProject template, but haven't been able to due to limitations in the meta-template, I would be very interested to hear it. The discussion is over at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]