Template talk:Rijksmonument

Creation
I created this template to tag Dutch Rijksmonuments. I am not familiar with intricate coding so it is very simple. Usage is to. It will generate a small box with the number and a reference to a registry. If anyone knows how to insert the official monument number inside the hyperlink please do. I have no idea how.

It will also add the article to the category rijksmonuments.Arnoutf (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a link to a more official source, added an image, doc, etc. I hope you like it. --Muhandes (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great thanks, had some problems finding a better sources and this one is indeed better. Also the blue shield is nice addition. Arnoutf (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Allignment
This template needs some cleanup. As it is currently implemented, it places the box into the text areas. This would be better located under the infobox, if there is one. If you look at an article like American Hotel, Amsterdam, the two infoboxes are placed next to each other making the article look tacky. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a style expert, but it seems like converting it to use the infobox style does exactly what you asked for, with two side effects. First, the text is slightly higher. Second, which might actually be beneficial, if two of these are used they will always be one below the other, not to the left. I implemented it in the sandbox, here's an example, note where the template shows and how:


 * Is this what you meant? --Muhandes (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is an improvement. Jane (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I synched it, let me know (and/or revert) if it causes any problems. --Muhandes (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

wrong website
This template references the KICH website which is deprecated in favor of the monumentenregister voor cultureelerfgoed. I would change it, but I believe some of the numbers have changed as well. Jane (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of a monument that changed number? --Muhandes (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any number changes, but the url's at http://monumentenregister.cultureelerfgoed.nl/php/main.php seem pretty inhospitable. BTW, I am interested in creating an inline version of this template, which does not create a box (with the image), but which just generates a short link which can be placed anywhere in text, lists, etc.
 * If I can help with that, drop me a note. Superp (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also see this edit over at commons. Superp (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ and used a much better URL, http://monumentenregister.cultureelerfgoed.nl/php/main.php?cAction=show&cOBJnr=3403 for example. An inline version can be easily implemented, are you looking for something like Cite AHPI? Maybe cite Monumentenregister? --Muhandes (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I created a quick version at my space, see if this is what you are looking for:

produces:


 * --Muhandes (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing me in the right direction! I was thinking more like:


 * For use case of what I have in mind, see User:Superp/Research/Henri Tino Zwiers. Unfortunately, the URL we are using does not seem to work for all monumentnrs. 508167 or 530921 are fail. Doing a search will deliver the object, with a different and horrific URL Superp (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Amended the URL in User:Superp/Rijksmonument-inline to http://monumentenregister.cultureelerfgoed.nl/php/main.php?cAction=search&sCompMonNr=3403 and that seems to work? Superp (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the odd thing. There are two IDs, the monument number, which is displayed, and the "object number" which is internal, but can be easily found from the URL. For some entries, these two numbers are the same, so you can search for 3403 and display 3403: search and display. For other entries, you may have a different object number, so search 508167 but display 1001849. In my opinion the best way to handle this is let the user decide what they want to do. So I added support for all options:

produces:
 * same ID:

Or inline  produces:

produces:
 * different ID

Or inline  produces:


 * If one cannot find the display ID

produces:

Or inline  produces:

Does it do what you need? --Muhandes (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow man, just, wow. I think this is perfect. How about I do some testing with an assortment of mon's, do some thinking and get back to you in 24hrs (kind of busy right now)? Superp (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no hurry, I'll keep an eye here, and when you give it the OK I'll move it to the main space. --Muhandes (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Works great in my view. A nicely complicated example is Diergaarde Blijdorp, a complex with a multitude of individual monuments:
 * brings up a list of all objects within the complex, while
 * brings up one individual object with the displayID, and
 * does a search with the object nr. Love it.
 * I would propose two small changes to the output:
 * in both the inline and the extended versions, write rijksmonument with a lowercase "r".
 * in the inline version, prefix the monument nr. with # (as part of the xlink's anchor). This because some nrs. might be mistaken for e.g. years, like
 * On a philosophical note, I'm flummoxed that organisations which control canonical identifiers like this don't create simple and permanent url's to look them up. WP:en, Commons, were all spending time reverse engineering. WP:nl even resorted to a url-shortener (look for para.ms in the source). Regs, Superp (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, after going through two restructuring of the USCG database and at least three of the BVMI database, each requiring thousands of edits to fix, I guess I learned not to expect much. I made the correction you suggested and went public: Cite Monumentenregister, I hope you and other editors will find it useful. Let me know if anything else is needed. --Muhandes (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think it's pretty useful we can use the register as a reference. How did we get by without this? I have started to use it, no doubt others will follow. Superp (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On a philosophical note, I'm flummoxed that organisations which control canonical identifiers like this don't create simple and permanent url's to look them up. WP:en, Commons, were all spending time reverse engineering. WP:nl even resorted to a url-shortener (look for para.ms in the source). Regs, Superp (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, after going through two restructuring of the USCG database and at least three of the BVMI database, each requiring thousands of edits to fix, I guess I learned not to expect much. I made the correction you suggested and went public: Cite Monumentenregister, I hope you and other editors will find it useful. Let me know if anything else is needed. --Muhandes (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think it's pretty useful we can use the register as a reference. How did we get by without this? I have started to use it, no doubt others will follow. Superp (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)