User talk:Dudemanfellabra/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 8

Historic Sites rating

Hello, Thank you for your advice about the assessment in that project. I have been working on assessing articles for WikiProject Libraries and added ratings for some other projects at the same time. I am sorry if this is a problem in the case of historic sites and will leave these unassessed in future.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Confused

This edit confused me — I thought that it was automatically added when the template had "nrhp_type" of "cp" and its own reference number. Did it ever do that in the past? Talkback, please. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The infobox only adds that category if the nrhp type is "indcp" – "Individually listed CP". The infobox will add a page to the cleanup category if no refnum is specified and neither of the nrhp_types is cp or indcp, but just adding a cp type/refnum won't put an article into the individually listed category.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

List of National Monuments of Ireland

Hello

I saw that you added a big part from the List of National Monuments of Ireland. In september 2011 there'll be a Wiki loves monuments in several countries in Europe. Maybe you can take a look [1]. Also I would like to ask you if you might be able to check this edit from me. Is it correct?

Sorry for my English.

Mvg, NL_Bas (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox at Kingsley Plantation

I generally ignore infoboxes (even in articles I write) and think they're generally unnecessary. But infoboxes have fans, for some reason, so I pick my battles. However, you replaced whatever the infobox in Kingsley Plantation was with this edit.

There appear to be errors in it. It's 60 acres, I think, not 50. The first plantation was built in 1765. Kingsley arrived in 1814. I don't know why 1817 is the year highlighted in the NRHP infobox. The governing body--and I'm not totally sure what that means--but it is managed by the National Park Service, not the State of Florida. The barn, slave quarters, and foundation of the kitchen and plantation houses are tabby; the plantation house and upper part of the kitchen is wood. Tabby is a material, not a style. Is there a particular reason the infobox reads as it does now? Did you use a specific source for this info? --Moni3 (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the source I used was the National Register Information System, which is provided by the National Park Service for download here. The 2009 version (see Template:NRISref for more information) has been uploaded to a private server by User:Elkman to this website, and searching for the plantation yields a prefabricated infobox. The information that the infobox includes can be found in context/more detail in a nomination document that is filled out for all sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. For information on how to obtain that document, see here.
Any discrepancies in the NRIS data and other sources may be due to the fact that the entire plantation may not be listed on the Register. Maybe only 50 acres were listed as contributing to the plantation while the other 10 acres are non-contributing. The date returned is labelled the date that a structure was built, but it may actually refer to some other date. The NRIS database only lists "dates of significance" and doesn't actually elaborate on what they are. The nomination document, however, would do so.
Please, by all means, if you have better information, correct the infobox. I would suggest obtaining that nomination document first, though, if only for nothing more than to understand why the seemingly incorrect information was included in the database. If you need any help, feel free to ask here or drop a comment at WT:NRHP. There are many editors that would be willing to help resolve the issue.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I used the NRHP nomination as a source in the Stonewall riots article, and it was an excellent read. Long after I downloaded it though, I notice it was taken down from whatever site hosted it. If there is a similar document for Kingsley Plantation, I would love to get hold of it. Googling "national register historic places kingsley plantation nomination" does not yield a return of a document similar to what I read about the Stonewall Inn. --Moni3 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, the nomination form for Kingsley would be located here if it were available; clicking that link, however, shows that the document has not yet been digitized. It can still be obtained, however, by following the directions here. My personal preference is sending an email to the NPS instead of snail mail. There is a possibility that they have actually digitized the document, but it just hasn't been uploaded to the Focus website yet. In this case, they can just email you back the pdf of the document. That was the case for many of the sites in Lauderdale County, Mississippi (my home county), and I now have all the documents for that region in a digital format on my computer. If they really aren't digitized yet, though, you can send them your address, and they will snail mail you a hard copy of the document. Good luck!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I requested and they sent the nomination. It's a bit disappointing, perhaps because it was written in 1970 and the majority of information written about Kingsley and the island has been published since then. It has also been acquired by the National Park Service since then. After reading the nomination, it seems the information published more recently is more accurate.
Is there a reason that the NRHP infobox is used over a national park infobox? --Moni3 (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Usually sites that are listed on the National Register – even if they are under the control of the National Park Service – have an NRHP infobox. It is perfectly acceptable to change the values displayed by the infobox, as long as references are given. As I said before, by all means replace the information if better sources are available than the NRHP document. Btw, did the document say anything about the 1817 date and the acreage issue?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
My 2 cents: In the Kingsley Plantation article, the NRHP infobox seems not very informative to me too, and it seems out of place at the top of the article, given the way the article is written. The place is not notable for it becoming NRHP-listed (while in articles about lesser places sometimes the NRHP listing is more important in establishing importance). The 1970 NRHP listing should be mentioned perhaps within chronological discussion in the "Activities and Restoration" section, and the infobox could be moved down to there and perhaps reduced in size by eliminating some information in it. This lesser prominence of an NRHP infobox might help, as it has in several long articles about U.S. warships that have a big history but are now ship museums and are NRHP-listed. The ship articles often have a ship infobox up front and a reduced NRHP infobox later, or sometimes a reduced NRHP infobox is included within the ship infobox. There are other articles on NRHP-listed places that use a church infobox or another infobox with no separate NRHP infobox. If you feel a different infobox would be appropriate, you might use that and drop the NRHP infobox entirely (just put the small amount of unique information it includes, i.e. the NRHP reference number, into the text where you mention the NRHP listing). No infobox at all is also okay. --doncram 01:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag

Hi. Is List of Bienes de Interés Cultural in Cádiz ok now? Regards. emijrp (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone got to it before me. Good job!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

NRHP in Arizona with schools

I'm going to list here some of the NRHP-side tasks I need done for some high school articles in Arizona...

Other schools that need NRHP infoboxes, etc.:

Special case:

  • Gymnasium (Kingman, Arizona) really needs a better location article-wise. Also, because of shuffling, it's not actually at Kingman High School anymore (that school moved). Right now they're building a new Lee Williams High School on the old site. The gym there is being preserved.

There are a bunch of old AZ high school pictures in this document of old school enrollments. Not sure about copyright or quality, sadly... [2] But that may be helpful for some of the work being done.

Raymie (t • c) 19:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

...Is there a reason you're telling me all this? Maybe you should tell this to the folks at WT:NRHP?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it's because you helped me out at Phoenix Union High School. Raymie (t • c) 21:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I wasn't aware that I made that edit haha. I frequently go through new articles that may be about sites on the NRHP and add infoboxes, cats, and other material. I haven't been doing that so much lately, but I will get around to it sometime. I see that you posted at the project talk page, so more than likely, you will get help pretty soon haha. I see that User:Doncram has already fixed up one of the articles for you and pointed you to WP:NRHPHELP. The specific "pre-fabricated" infoboxes about which he is talking can be found in this section on that page. If you need any more help, just let me or the project know! Thanks for helping out!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Arroyo Seco Parkway

Was added February 4, 2011 refnum 10001198 [3] Einbierbitte (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

NRHP infobox edits

Mistake. Sorry. clariosophic (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

NRHP in national parks

I've been working on reorganizing and creating NRHP listings in NPS units, and in particular am tidying up NRHP properties in Grand Teton National Park in support of Mongo's work toward making the main article an FA. I'd like to do a template focusing on the park similar to the Template:NRHP in Teton County, Wyoming, but focusing only on the park and omitting the redundant NRHP bottom bar. Since that template is set up only for counties, I'm having trouble reformatting it - I have no template mojo beyond a certain point. Can you look at Template:NRHP in Grand Teton NP and advise on what (presumably nested) parameters need to be adjusted or created for it to work? See the list already generated: National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Teton National Park. Since some places, like Yellowstone, span multiple counties and states, I thought I'd start with an easy one first - GRTE's all in one county, but the template will have to accommodate more complex arrangements. I've asked Nyttend for help as well. Acroterion (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

[copied from my talk page] I'm definitely not familiar with template coding. Virtually all of my template edits have been the ubiquitous county navboxes for communities, which I placed all over the country, but with all of them I simply copied and pasted code. The only thing I can suggest is what I've done with MPS and other local templates: you can see examples of my MPS templates at {{Samuel Hannaford and Sons TR}}, {{Cross-Tipped Churches}}, and {{Upper Prospect MRA}}, or you could check the non-MPS {{Archaeological NRHP in Hamilton County, Ohio}}. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this what you wanted? The template originally depended on {{NRHP navigation box}}, which is a kind of meta-template for all NRHP navboxes. Since the national park doesn't quite fit into the usual county, state mold, it was necessary to fall back onto the non-customized {{Navbox}} template. Everything that you see in the infobox should be pretty easily spotted in the code, but if you need any more help, let me know.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Aha! I thought it might be something simple like that, but didn't know where to look for it. Thanks! Acroterion (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mississippi Landmark designation

Template:Mississippi Landmark designation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome; I couldn't see why not to delete them as author-requested. Thanks for pointing out the redirect that I missed; I remembered to check WhatLinksHere for the other two templates, but obviously I forgot to do that with this one. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

NRHP infobox update

Hey, I got bored and came with an updated version of the NRHP infobox (see User:Niagara/NRHP). It sorta of is what ideally I think should be in the new infobox, which include sorta looking like the current infobox, uses the meta Infobox template, works with the Designation template, and also works [theorectically] in place of the HSITES infobox for non-US designations. There still are probably a bunch of bugs and it isn't completely compatible with HSITES, but it's a start. Feel free to test or tweak it ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I haven't ignored you.. I've just been very busy recently, so I haven't had time to look through the code. I'll post on your talk page when I've looked at it. Sorry!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey dude.. Sorry I haven't had time to get back to you, but I've been extremely busy with school. Right now I'm in finals week, so I'm having less and less to worry about. I looked through your code and overall like it, though I see some very serious problems with implementing it. For one, the fact that you changed the |nrhp_type= parameters to just |type= will cause serious backwards compatibility issues. I agree that "type" is a much better name for the parameter, but you can't just turn 3(+?) years of tradition on its head at once.. the best way to go about this change would be to allow compatibility for both and slowly convert all from |nrhp_type= to |type= while telling everyone else to start using |type=. We did kind of the same thing with |designated= vs. |designated_nrhp_type=. That change only affected the ~2K NHLs, though; changing |nrhp_type= would affect every single article–upwards of 30K, I believe. Though it could be done, I don't see it ever happening haha.
There are also some minor bugs, including the fact that you have the same parameter for designation listing dates and for designation unlisting dates (as you call them, though I like delisting better). The un/delisting parameters would have to be renamed to make that work.
I like the idea of trying to add functionality for the {{Designation}} template into the NRHP infobox, and I may try to make that work for the bars at the top of the NRHP infobox.. I'll see what I can do. If we were going to try to merge the two infoboxes completely, though, I think merging the NRHP infobox into the HSITES one would be the better direction. Yes, the code is a bit messy (though I'm working to improve it all the time), but the HSITES infobox can already cover NRHP sites in detail; all that would need to be done is add a few more parameters there.
There has actually been some discussion on the infobox talk page about adding in some functionality for "significant dates" (i.e. non-built dates).. I have recently updated the sandbox to again be meta-compatible, and I think you should check it out. Maybe drop a comment at the infobox talk page or something.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Longest section title on Wikipedia

Is that verifiable, or original research? :-) --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha.. pretty sure it's from a reliable source.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Archive link fix

Thanks for fixing the link to that previous discussion about automated stub creation -- I appreciate the assistance. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

grand forks

Could you please take a look at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota/drafts#New Hampshire Apartments and Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota/drafts#Grand Forks Riverside Neighborhood Historic District, and copy them to mainspace if you agree they are okay.

Also, FYI, WPA Stone Structures in Memorial Park and Calvary Cemetery is new; I created it from scratch (it is not in Elkman or my system as it is new). --doncram 23:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In this edit I modified the New Hampshire Apartments stub to flow a bit better. Part of the problem with the output of your bot is that it has one-sentence, one-line paragraphs. In normal writing, paragraphs are usually longer. As such, I've collapsed the information there into a single paragraph and moved the MRA to a "Further reading" section, as I did with the other two articles I worked on earlier. Also, when the NRHP listing is of a single building, I don't think the listing was of a single building/less than one acre statements are really necessary to include in the article. Perhaps in a district article or one with multiple contributing structures this would be fine, but if the building is the only thing on the register, this kind of statement is a bit overkill in my opinion.
The Grand Forks Riverside Neighborhood Historic District stub was much better, and I only cleaned up minor things in this edit. The contributing buildings/structures/etc. statement was fine in this one.. and I also like that you simply commented out the built/significance dates instead of deleting them entirely. That makes it easier for future editors to develop the article. You could possibly make use of comments in other stubs when there are vague statements that cannot be clarified.
I do invite you to take a look at those formatting issues I corrected, though (especially spaces.. links don't work right without proper spacing). I would support moving these stubs into mainspace now, but I'll let you do that.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

builder field for nrhp infobox

In New Hampshire Apartments, i put "| builder = Dinnie Brothers" into the infobox, thinking it would display. I thot you added a builder field, or maybe it was only just discussed. Could you add it to the infobox code? --doncram 23:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It was discussed, along with many other changes to the infobox (including making it meta-compatible) a while back, but I could never get enough discussion to form consensus and change it. Now the sandbox test has been deleted, and new things have been added in, so it'll be harder to restore the old information, but I'll try to make it work. I may just be WP:BOLD and update the infobox myself and if people complain, tell them they should have shown interest beforehand. I'll get around to it shortly.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Good, thanks. I dunno if it would be easy or hard, but it would be nice if you could also put in a temporary hidden category code to indicate articles having an actual entry for the "builder=" field. And similar indicating how many articles have an entry in the "architect=" field. If categories exist, then one can report the total # of articles in the category, like is done for various categories in the NRHP ToDo box. These counts would be useful for motivating / supporting a cleanup campaign on this item. For example, virtually all the Rhode Island and Massachusetts NRHP articles are just based off of Elkman's output, and incorrectly show a ratio of architects to builders of approximately 3,000 to 0. By sampling cases where have complete NRHP nom docs like in Grand Forks, one could figure what the correct ratio should be approximately; the correct ratio is going to be maybe 10:1 but it should not be 15,000:1. It would be great if you could add that functionality to keep in for a while, which i think you can, i think it is similar to what you did previously for another issue. --doncram 23:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Curious, would you like me to restore the sandbox test? If so, just tell me where it was, and I'll be happy to help. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

List ratings

Keep up the good work, but take a break every so often, doncha know. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha, well I've been on a break for about a month now; just picked it back up today. I have about three ongoing projects right now that require editing about a thousand articles each, so I'm slowly making progress on all three. For the state lists, I usually just go through an entire state at once, maybe two or three, then pause for a while and do other stuff. I'm going to try to do Minnesota and Missouri later today, but I have a big presentation in my Thermodynamics class next week, so I need to be focusing on it more than this. Wikipedia is my outlet when I'm tired of thinking about Physics haha. Help is always welcomed! :D--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

mississippi masonic buildings

If/when you have time, i'd be happy if you'd care to start articles for List of Masonic buildings in the United States#Mississippi. There are just 10 mississippi ones needed to complete out the nation-wide list. If you don't care to, let me know. Or I will get around to starting them, in a month or two or three. --doncram 20:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I probably won't have time to do that for a while.. I have a few big projects going on right now that are mostly behind the scenes, and after that I have about 5-6 articles that I plan to start pertaining to Meridian. Even if I put it on my to-do list, I wouldn't be able to get around to it before you.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Reassessment?

Hi, the other day you assessed Franklin House (Athens, Georgia) as stub. It's had a fair amount of expansion since, and I was wondering if you'd mind taking another look? LadyofShalott 01:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I just upgraded the assessment to Start-class. In the future you can just blank the assessment, and someone (more than likely me) will be along shortly to re-assess the article for you. WP:NRHP is pretty good about assessing quality in a timely manner (and we're slowly assessing importance, which we recently implemented, though with over 30K articles, it's a bit of a daunting task). Thanks for helping out with the project by creating this article. Hope to see more soon!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't sure the etiquette on that. I'll remember it for the future. I do have some other articles on NRHP-listed sites planned. LadyofShalott 04:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Cottage Home Historic District

Thanks for assessing my article! I would like to get the article up to GA status at least. Do you mind giving me some pointers on what I can do to improve the article and why it wasn't assessed higher? I used the current GA and FA articles on historic districts as guidelines and thought that I was pretty close to those. I have a peer review discussion started here if you would like to respond there. Thanks! PhantomPlugger (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've left a few comments at the peer review page for you. Great job on the article!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm leaving my responses on the peer review page. There are a couple issues I would like some help getting ironed out. PhantomPlugger (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

nrhp architects

Hi Dudemanfellabra -- I noticed you removed a number of architect articles from wikiproject NRHP with edit summaries like "remove from wp:nrhp; architect of fewer than 10 buildings listed on the register". It seems like a pretty drastic and unfriendly step.

These include articles created by me and by others:

  1. Talk:John W. Ross (Iowa architect)
  2. Talk:John W. Gaddis
  3. Talk:Rufus G. Russell
  4. Talk:Patton & Miller (actually has at least 26 listed on National Register)
  5. Talk:Mowbray and Uffinger
  6. Talk:John McMurtry (architect) (actually has at least 18 NRHP listings)
  7. Talk:John Eberson
  8. Talk:Donn Barber
  9. Talk:Thomas P. Barber
  10. Talk:Harrie T. Lindeberg
  11. Talk:Sheperd S. Woodcock
  12. Talk:Oscar Wenderoth (actually has at least 49 NRHP listings)

I checked the discussion from a few months ago about importance ratings for WikiProject NRHP, in which we shared differing views about the importance of architects, as I recalled no idea ever expressed that the architects should be disallowed from the wikiproject. Importance ratings don't matter much, IMO, although I expressed then that I think if someone wants to assert a given article is more important, we should let that stand. No one suggested then that architect articles should not be allowed. On these ones, I created most of them for the WikiProject, and they serve the wikiproject's need to clarify which are architects vs. builders, and they otherwise have merit.

I don't particularly want a big new discussion at wt:NRHP about WikiProject NRHP importance ratings or inclusion criteria, but I will participate if you want to open one. Given there is no consensus established against these being included, and barring some big new discussion, could you please agree not to take the pretty drastic step of removing these or similar articles from the WikiProject? --doncram 22:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that you restored the WP:NRHP banner to the three architects listed above that actually do have more than 10 NRHP listings credited to them, and I agree with that move. When I was going through the architects, I simply looked at the articles and if there were fewer than 10 NRHP listings in the article, I removed the banner. Your assertions that Patton & Miller have 26, John McMurtry has 18, and Oscar Wenderoth has 49 are in my view unsourced, though I'm sure you've obtained these numbers from the NRIS database. I would suggest adding a statement a la "____ has designed __ buildings/structures/whatever else that have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places" to each article–with a reference to the NRIS database–if you don't want that to happen again.
If an architect has designed/built less than 10 buildings listed on the register, I don't think he/she should be included in the project. Sure, the architect is associated with the NRHP, but not very closely. Saying that these non-prolific architects (at least non-prolific as related to the NRHP) should be covered by the project is like saying New York City should be included in this project because there are many NRHP listings in the city. There has to be a line somewhere, or else there will be 5 million architects under this project that have little to no connection to the actual register. The number 10 is an arbitrary number and may be changed if consensus asks, but I wouldn't support moving it any lower.
I see that you've created Carl M. Neuhausen and added him to the project, although there are only six NRHP listings attributed to him on the article itself. The NRIS databse may reveal a higher number, but it is not in the article. As such, I am going to remove the project banner from that talk page. If the NRIS database shows he has more than 10, I would like to see a referenced statement in the article about that before you restore the banner. Ideally, I would like to see all of the buildings listed in the article, but I think that referenced statement should be enough.
If you would like me to stop removing project banners from architects that have less than 10 listings, you can start a discussion at the project page, but I am pretty sure that many will agree with my POV–that there has to be a line somewhere. I'm fine with you creating these architect articles (though I don't plan on contributing to any myself), but this type of endeavour seems like it would be more in line with WP:Architecture.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, do let's try exchanging views a bit more. Yes, those numbers for Oscar Wenderoth and 2 others are from NRIS, from my own running of my own programs on the 2010 version (so the counts might not agree exactly with what you'd get from checking Elkman's reports based on the 2009 version). I am likely to go on creating articles for NRHP architects/builders/engineers down about 5 sites (which amounts to 907 articles by one imperfect report, many of those articles having already been created). There are already articles for most of the 262 persons having 10 or more NRHP sites.
I don't think it's reasonable for you or for a WikiProject to require a count of NRHP-listed places to be written into architect articles; as an editorial matter it is unreasonable to force that upon other editors as it is not necessarily something encyclopedically useful to say.
I think that among these ones, and others not listed here, are local architects who are in fact Wikipedia-notable and encyclopedic topics truly because someone took the time to document them as architects by obtaining NRHP listing for a few of their works, often including their personal homes. These local architects are very NRHP-associated. I think if one or more places are listed for their architecture, and the architect/builder has an article really only because of the local historian's effort plus an NRHP editor also finding the NRHP document's biography interesting to use in an architect article, then it is natural for WikiProject NRHP to take credit for the article.
You do concede it is just your judgment, that there was no consensus or even any other opinion expressed by anyone, about your choosing to draw any arbitrary line, much less 10 exactly, about what should be allowed into WikiProject NRHP or not. I don't think you should be very adamant that you want to take on that type of legislator and policeman role.
I don't mind about the project or you using an arbitrary line for setting an importance rating; I do mind for determining membership in the project. The first problem is that the numeric line is arbitrary, and changing. You would disallow an architect with 9, and change it sometime after a 10th became known and the article was reviewed again? But that is not the same as changing an importance rating for articles in the project; it would be entirely out of the project and would not outside of what would be naturally reviewed. What if a person had 10, but one was demolished and delisted? Or, do you want to set up a separate work area in the WikiProject to keep track of the ones below the arbitrary cutoff, so that they can be restored later? I don't think that is worthwhile. You would disallow any personal, informed judgment, that some architect such as perhaps Donn Barber who died relatively young, was actually pretty important. I and others in good faith created articles for NRHP. Your going out of your way to remove my announcement of several of these from the NRHP new articles announcement page, seems rather unfriendly and unnecessary. I don't think it helps the community of editors to set up negative judgments about this. --doncram 22:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Then go ahead and put every single article on the encyclopedia under the scope of the project, Doncram. You'll try even if everyone else says no. I'm done arguing with you. The week(s) when you are blocked are seriously some of the most pleasant weeks I've spent on here, but as soon as your block is lifted, it's back to the same old same old. Bring it up at WT:NRHP if you want someone else's input. You know mine. Have a good day.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll restore these ones to the wikiproject. I think we agree that interaction like this is unpleasant. You are no saint; you seem to think your negative comments about me at wt:NRHP are clever or whatever, but I think they are not generally appreciated. I don't think anyone there, except a few outsiders, likes to see the negativity go on and on. --doncram 00:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It's strange that when you leave, the negativity leaves also. Coincidence?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: NRHP sites... Thanks!

FYI I am going in behind you and adding images to many of the template you are adding to the Portland NRHP sites. Thanks again for all of your help! I look forward to watching these articles expand. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Btw I realize that was kind of crappy for me to post a comment on our project page about you without your knowledge, and I apologize. My reasoning for behaving in this manor is that many times in the past when very minimal stubs were created–particularly by a newer member–I have commented on that user's talk page a little hastily and condescendingly, and others in the project have gotten mad (for good reason) at me for doing that haha. I was going to make sure the comment was well-tempered before sending it to you so as not to "scare you off" or anger you. I just have an intense distaste for so-called "drives" in which hundreds of small, one-sentence articles are created with little to no effort at all. I realize that stubs are completely legal on the site, but I would never myself create something that I hadn't at least done a little research about. That's just my preference, though, and I can't force you to do anything with these. I plan to finish out my little "cleanup" drive and then go back and assess all the articles as Low-importance. I'm hoping that since WP:OREGON is such an active project that these articles won't stay in this state for too long. Again, thanks for the help, and I look forward to watching these articles expand as well!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I was not offended, and I understanding your reasoning for both the talk page rough draft and the stub blitz. I have to admit, though, I disagree and feel that stubs help the encyclopedia by giving contributors starting points instead of being scared off by red links. I love doing research and wish I had the time to expand each of these entries. I hope I did not create too much work for you and the NRHP project and I will keep your suggestions in mind for the future. THANKS AGAIN, sincerely, for your hard work. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

NRHP nom forms

Thanks for finding and linking to the nom form for the Paul C. Murphy House. I'll use it to expand the article. I also have been unable to find the nom form for William D. Fenton House. If you can find that one, I'll use it too. Finetooth (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Link added. I'm currently going through and adding infoboxes/nomination documents to about 100 articles created by User:Another Believer recently. This one wasn't on the list, but I'm happy to help! For future reference, the link to the nomination document of any site on the NRHP in Oregon will have the format http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/XXXXXXXX.pdf – just replace "XXXXXXXX" with the 8-digit NRIS reference number (79002145 in the case of the William D. Fenton House).--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Most helpful. Thank you. Finetooth (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Charlton-King-Vandam Historic District

Thanks for adding the project banners to this, I don't know how I neglected to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's cool. I'm currently going through recently created articles recognized by User:TedderBot that are likely to be under the scope of WP:NRHP, and this one showed up on the list. I didn't rate NYC importance because I'm not part of that project or from the area, but I do know NRHP importance guidelines. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Silk Stocking District (Talladega)

Thanks for the input, I downsized the images to 150px and the page does look much better. I'm attempting give encouragement to what may be a promising newbie and don't want to discourage him with things that might seem to be insignificant issues from his perspective. The really important policies are enough to scare away so many of our newcomers. Altairisfar (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

RfA

I can see you just started an RfA page. I will keep an eye on it and !vote on it sometime in the future. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 21:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
At this point in time, I would recommend that you to withdraw your nomination as it is unlikely to succeed at this point. Doing so would show good judgement and that you know when to "raise the flag", qualities which are always admirable, especially in admins. However, you do need to brush up on policy, especially in the areas that you would like to work, because it was clear that your RFA was going well until you answered questions 4, 5, and 6, and that pretty much shot it down. I hope that this experience does not sour you on the process. I have had two RFA's shot down due to my lack of A7 knowledge at the time, but here I am trudging along still.  :)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Withdrawing with dignity was much better than waiting to be shot down in flames, and you'll gain a lot of respect for this. I opposed, but there was nothing personal as I had never come across your work before. I'm almost certainly support your next RfA. You might like to read this essay I wrote: Advice for RfA candidates, and don't hesitate to ask me anytime if ever you need help on anything. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Noticed you are changing the paraphrasing

Hey, I noticed that you have become making changes. I would suggest that you completely rewrite each section instead of paraphrasing a paraphrase. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ryan is correct, This is generally a good idea, especially when the extent of the original paraphrasing has been questioned. DGG ( talk ) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Bryn Mawr College

Hello, The M. Carey Thomas Library article was very meagre but has now been improved by adding all the content from the Bryn Mawr College article. I am still rating library articles but leave the historic building ratings blank for 'importance'.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving the NRHP importance of these articles blank. Someone will be along to rate their importance in the future. Great job on the Thomas Library article!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: NRHP articles

I acknowledge your request and understand your preference. Do notice from my recent contributions that I have gone back and added infoboxes to many of the stubs I created and marked many of them as low importance for both WikiProject Oregon and WikiProject NRHP. I tend to contribute systematically, but sometimes chunks of work get neglected. Please keep in mind that I am contributing to Wikipedia on my own terms as a volunteer and that I see my stub-creating as "planting seeds" for future expansion. I will try to remember to use Elkman's tool as I continue creating Oregon and Washington NRHP stubs, but additional notes on my talk page are not necessary (I do not mean this in a disrespectful manner; I acknowledged your request the first time and have not forgotten). :) I admire your work and hope that you continue contributing to Wikipedia. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't look at your recent contributions.. I only looked at the archive page to which I linked, all of the articles on which still haven't had infoboxes added to them since July 16. Had I known you were going back systematically, I wouldn't have left a note on your talk page. I thought I had shown you the Elkman tool before, but I couldn't remember, so I thought I'd bring it up again. Guess I should have been a more thorough investigator haha. I understand the systematic approach, though I myself don't use it on article creation.. just talk page/cleanup tasks like infoboxes. Though I don't agree with the whole stub thing, I nonetheless appreciate you helping the project. Carry on! haha.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries! There are definitely still some stubs that need infoboxes, but I did go back to add templates to many of the most recent stubs I created. I started quite a few articles, so hopefully not too many were overlooked. I bookmarked Elkman's tool and it most definitely comes in handy. Since all of the pages I have started are on my watchlist, I am following up your infobox additions with relevant categories. Teamwork! Again, I understand your preferences but just now that different people work differently. I look forward to contributing to both WikiProjects, and hopefully I can start expanding some of these stubs to GA status in the near future. Best wishes! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox NRHP

Please review my latest edit to Infobox NRHP; did it fulfill the request properly? As you know, my understanding of template coding is quite poor, so I fear that I did the wrong thing without realising it. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks exactly right to me!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

World Heritage in Danger

Concerning this, I still don't understand why the link in the infobox should go to a redirect page. The redirect page List of World Heritage Sites in danger is only there for wiki-historical reasons and should in fact eventually be deleted IMHO (since its name refers to a non-entity). bamse (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBROKEN.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It says: "This rule does not apply to cases where there are other reasons to make the change, such as linking to an unprintworthy redirect." bamse (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
And what makes this redirect unprintworthy? Aside from all of this, I am not an administrator, so I cannot implement the change even if I wanted to. Your best course of action would be to put an {{editprotected}} request on the talk page and hope the admin that comes by is not in a bad mood.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
"The name of a redirect may be unprintworthy for ... not being encyclopaedic." I'll put {{editprotected}} on the talk page. Thanks. bamse (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

infobox text color

Hey no problem, I've gotten busy myself. I really appreciate it. It is really going to help unify the look of things. We have a couple of really active editors creating and polishing articles of historic sites in Western PA right now, so this is coming at a great time. Anyway, thank you very much for putting in the request. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Works great, thanks again for getting the text color designation integrated! CrazyPaco (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

NRHP discussion

Hi, I noticed that you are active in the NRHP WikiProject, and I was hoping that you would like to make a comment on a discussion going on there. You don't have to, but it would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is at WT:NRHP#Numbers in NRHP county lists. Thank you. Theking17825 16:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Good job, mate!

Thanks!
For all the importance assessments. It's a "Wonder" it hasn't driven you cuckoo. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And great job to you too for splitting out all those counties into their own separate lists. It appears as if this is the way it's going to go for all counties throughout the nation.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Great Fire of 1910

Sorry for the confusion. I probably could have made it more clear. No doubt you saw that there are several sites associated with the fire in the TR that don't have any articles yet. I'm not sure how the include the TR in the article about the fire. (I just found the 'related' tag and tried to play around with it.) Einbierbitte (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your use of the related tag on that article. I even added it as an example on our Importance scale for future reference. I would think the TR document itself could be used to write a section in the fire article. It may even be desirable to create a redirect from the TR name, or heck, even create a TR article itself!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Image Replacement Query

I propose to replace the image for the 'Governor Edwin B. Winans Informational Designation' entry in the article 'List of Michigan State Historic Sites in Livingston County, Michigan' with this photograph: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edwin_B.Winan%27s_historical_marker_Hamburg_Michigan.JPG

It seems better to me to have a picture of the historical marker than a portrait of the governor. Do you agree and therefore have no objection to the change? I believe you originally added the portrait of the governor and I have no interest in encroaching on someone else's contribution if they object.Dwight Burdette (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine with me. When I was initially creating the list, I was just trying to find as many relevant pictures as possible. I have notice you adding many pictures to the different lists and thank you for doing so. I had intended to thank you before now, but I just haven't gotten around to it. Great job!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I have made the change. I'm not sure how many more photos I can add for the Livingston article because the outlying areas are further than I'm inclined to drive for a picture. Dwight Burdette (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A bit of assistance...

Hello. Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if we could ask for your assistance at this discussion, where I am at a loss to figure out the correct way of changing a colour on the designation template. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's okay - I can handle this! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I like it. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I edit conflicted with you in the NRHP sandbox, so I'll leave you to sort it out! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe it would be much easier if the color and text output of Template:Designation was blank for invalid inputs. Then we could just check if there is any output instead of checking for something obscure like #FFF. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Doing that messes up the display of Infobox historic site.. there isn't a fail safe color there like there is for the NRHP infobox. The reason I made the default color white was so that anyone who typed in an invalid designation would be greeted with a somewhat aesthetically pleasing error message rather than raw code that many may not understand and might freak out when they see. Besides, we can't just check for no output because the "{{#tag:nowiki|}}" is still passed through, even if the switch function returns blank. That means the if call would trigger automatically. It appears to me that the only solution is to rewrite the local designation bit in the NRHP infobox from the ground up or to change Designation/colour back to use & #35; instead of #.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. I just made the NRHP infobox check if text="Invalid designation".. all we want to know is if the local designations are supported by the Designation template, and if they are, they must have color, text, and abbreviation. As such, checking for valid text output has exactly the same effect as checking for valid color output, except we don't have to worry about the #tag issue. Fix is in the sandbox. Copy away. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
In my mind you were an administrator, but I now see that you are not. Changes deployed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd/Incorrect use of NRHP infobox

While we're no strangers to many ways one can misuse the NRHP infobox, however this caught my attention in that it is a unique attempt and deals with an "NRHP elgible" building. I am planning on replacing it with an Infobox building, but has there ever been any consenus on how to handle NRHP eligible buildings? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In my mind, eligible for the NRHP is not on the NRHP, so it shouldn't get an NRHP infobox that says so. At most this article should get a CP infobox because of its association with Gettysburg Battlefield. As far as project-wide consensus, though, I haven't seen any. Maybe bring this up at the project page?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

WP NRHP in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject National Register of Historic Places for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

NRHP table format change

Dudemanetc.

There is a table formatting system change being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places#New_system_for_tables and your input has been requested. Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Cultural Heritage of Serbia

Hello! I need your help. In Infobox Historic Site designation "Serbian Cultural Property of Great Importance" should be fixed to "Cultural Heritage of Serbia" See Studenica monastery, for example. Red field, Serbian Cultural Property of Great Importance, should be fixed to have "Cultural Heritage of Serbia" written. Also, that red is so tearing! Can someone add some lest strong color? For Serbia, blue will be the best, not read... For any further information's, i am here! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 12:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Can you please respond me to know what is going on... :) --WhiteWriter speaks 19:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the long response time. I've been busy with classes and research, so I haven't really had time to get on here. The designation text/colors are controlled by the {{Designation}} template. If you'd like to change text or colors, you can leave a message at the template talk page for discussion.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Soulé Steam Feed Works

Hello. I saw that you had deleted my corrections on the wikipedia Soule' Steam Feed Works page and wanted me to contact you. I wish I had seen it earlier, but I usually check out what is written online about once a year. I did not realize you (or Wikipedia) might consider my changes COI. I know that you and I both want factual information in the encyclopedia. I sometimes find that The Meridian Star is not an accurate or factual source for information. It is an unfortunate situation that has been the case for most of my lifetime. Even my college professors cringed when I brought in a copy of my hometown newspaper to editing class.

There are two glaring errors in the article that should be fixed above all else. First, the City of Meridian has not been involved in Soule' preservation project or the live steam festival. The November event has always been hosted by the museum. The museum's board of directors and festival committee agreed to cooperate with hosting Railfest the same weekend as our event. Second, Jim McRae deeded the Soule' property to the Mississippi Industrial Heritage Museum, Inc. in October 2003.

Who am I? I have a bachelor's degree in communications and have worked in historic preservation for the past 29 years. The Soule' museum is one of my current projects. I also maintain the Soule' museum/festival website. I have access to the Soule' company records, George W. Soule's autobiography and other primary sources, so I will be willing to cite them as sources when changes are made in the future unless you still think my submissions are COI. Thank you. Soulelivesteam (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Winecoff Hotel fire

I've expanded the article and broadened the references - I had to stop where I was due to real-life things like work. While in graduate school in the early 1980s I did an NRHP nom for the Winecoff as part of a class assignment . The owners at that time weren't interested in pursuing registration - I think the owners then were the Georgia Baptist Convention, who had just closed down the places as a retirement home. Somewhere in the attic I have my notes and report (not usable here) and clippings from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (eminently usable). I got free access to the building and roamed around taking pictures, which are also somewhere in the attic. Acroterion (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Template help

This request isn't NRHP-related, so please ignore it if you find it too hard. Confusingly, {{United States presidential elections category}} puts articles into Category:United States presidential elections by date, but it doesn't add them to the elections-by-year categories: for example, Category:United States presidential election, 1892 is not part of Category:1892 elections in the United States. Could you please modify the template so that it will always add "Category:Elections in ___" to a category in which it's located? I don't know the coding necessary to get the template to change its behavior based on the title of the category where it's used. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this what you wanted? The 1892 category now seems to be working correctly. Feel free to revert if that's not what you wanted. I didn't watch the cat page, so respond here if you need anything else!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's it; thanks! I've checked the categories for several other years' elections, and all of them have "____ elections in the United States" as well. Sorry for the late response; I was gone all day on a photo trip, which will enable me to get National Register of Historic Places listings in Sandusky, Ohio quite close to fully-illustrated status. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Rating

Sorry for any confusion. I've been trying to rate the stubs in the talk page as I remember, but I'm using the National Register infobox/talk page generator which doesn't automatically rate the NRHP articles. Maybe Elkman can program it to do so. Swampyank (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand, and that's what I suspected. I've asked Elkman if he could include importance=Low by default. Sorry for the mix-up!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Causeyville Historic District

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

dateform fails

See the NRHP project talk page. dateform= does not work. PumpkinSky talk 02:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It was simply a typo: PumpkinSky meant to type "mdy" but accidentally used the invalid option of "myd". Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bot misses

See my talk page. PumpkinSky talk 10:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

NRHP Images

Hi Dude, in a January 1, 2012 comment on my Talk page, you had inquired about my use of NRHP digital images taken from the Mississippi Department of Archives and History website. At that time, you wrote that you were in contact with a staffer at MDAH to find out if the images were useable. Did you ever receive a response from the MDAH staffer? I ask because User:Magog the Ogre has been going through my past postings of MDAH digital images and sending me File permission problem templates. I thought the MDAH permission statement that I had used was sufficient, but Ogre must not be convinced. Thanks. Woodlot (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This could be useful. I never got them to put specifically on their website that the pictures are useable.. but this chain of emails, which I presume Magog the Ogre can see, should provide enough context for the copyright of the images. If not, let me know.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Although your correspondence with MDAH my be just what's needed, I'm reluctant to post hidden documentation, that I can't read, on an Administrator's Talk page. Because MDAH NRHP images are unique, I'll probably try the recommended Wikipedia:Non-free content template with a rationale for use. Woodlot (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
If you would like, I can forward the emails to you so that you can read them before passing them along.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again, but I really know nothing about OTRS tickets or how to use them. As you noted back in January, the MDAH website gives instructions on how to Credit Images from their database (http://www.apps.mdah.ms.gov/Public/about.htm). That fact, plus the MDAH Standards and Policy statement ...MDAH will produce digital images only from items held in the public domain or from copyrighted items for which permission to digitize has been obtained from copyright owners... (http://mdah.state.ms.us/arrec/standards.php) led me to believe the images were free to use, much like the MDAH Forrest Lamar Cooper Postcard Collection. On further investigation, I now see that some MDAH NRHP photographs are used on Wikipedia with OTRS licensing, such as the File:Dabney-Green House.png which you posted. But obtaining an OTRS license for each photo would be an arduous task. I apologize for thinking I knew more than I did. Woodlot (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that a Discussion is in progress on the Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard concerning the status of all MDAH digital images. You can view it here: commons:COM:ON#2010071210046496 Woodlot (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dudemanfellabra/Archive_4&oldid=1140750132"