User:Elkman/Sandbox4

NRHP 2014 database loaded
I have loaded the 2014 National Register database onto my web site, and I have updated the infobox generator and its corresponding scripts to include buttons to select either the 2014 or 2010 version of the database for queries. I've done plenty of testing in my staging environment to make sure that all of the queries still work, but in case there are any issues, I'd like to know about them and fix them. Feel free to ping me here or on my talk page if you have any questions or problems.

One caveat is that the 2014 database doesn't contain the geolocated coordinates, so properties added after 2010 won't have locations. (But, if anyone finds a way to get those locations, I'll look into loading them.) There's also a 2017 spreadsheet of properties that the NPS published, although it doesn't contain as much data as the previous databases had. I'll see if I can load that.

I'm looking into a way to scrape coordinates, names, and other data from PDF nomination files. This is still experimental, but if I can make this work, it'll be a very neat thing. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * We appreciate your work! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow, it looks great. Including the NRHP nomination document reference with photos link will be hugely helpful, thank you for that!  I will comment more later.  One tiny glitch, as for this laying in of the drafted reference into Henry Sherry House article, is that the "accessdate=April 09, 2018" shows a display error within the cite web ...what's needed is to strip off the leading zero from the day number, to make it "April 9, 2018".  (Actually maybe not everyone will see the display error, but it puts the article into hidden Category:CS1 errors: dates and looks bad in my account, which is enabled for display of CS1 errors.) --Doncram (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That should be fixed. I didn't see the right option at first in the PHP date format, but I fixed it.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Elkman, the NRHP infobox generator stuff has been working great, thanks so much. A couple gnits:
 * You are calling this a 2014 version of database, yet it includes " . Should that be "2014a" then?  And for the record do you have a more specific version date, e.g. the last listing date included, which could be noted at template:NRISref and otherwise understood?--Doncram (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, hmm, template:NRISref documentation shows "2013a: Database released November 2013, with changes up to September 30, 2014." I don't see who edited that. Okay if that is what is meant. --Doncram (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * About the link to NRHP nomination and photos, i.e. message like "NRHP nomination and photos are probably at http://focus.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/79000956", the link given is not working right now (though that might be fixed by NPS, per my request about URLs in a discussion section below). Oddly, the corresponding link from the refnum in the infobox at Dr. Nathan Gaither House does work.  It goes instead to https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/79000956.  Perhaps you could update from "https://focus.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/79000956" format to use the npgallery format?  Which correspondence that I quote below mentions is a permanent change, to use npgallery and not focus.  This is not an emergency if the NPS fixes their server to again support the "legacy links", but why not use directly what they suggest now. --Doncram (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do still wonder if you could please include "source:NRIS2013a" in coordinates, where "NRIS2013a" can be taken to mean what NRIS coords data you are using, right after the actual coordinates given, as in
 * | coordinates = 39.13667°N, -77.19917°W
 * rather than
 * | coordinates = 39.13667°N, -77.19917°W
 * This would support User:ProprioMe OW and me and perhaps some others' longterm effort to identify which coordinates have been confirmed or improved by Wikipedia editors, vs. which are less likely to be accurate, as covered in some previous discussion sections. My request is not that you take on any big effort to actually improve the coordinates data yourself, but rather just to help out in setting a precedent that we can/should provide attribution and focus on improving unattributed coords.  By the way, when I create articles I check the coordinates in the corresponding county list-article and use those if they are available where NRIS2013a coords are not, or if they are different, as I trust that NRHP editors adding the items to the list-articles are exercising good care.  Then in a new article, I would change the "source:" field to indicate something different than "NRIS2013a". --Doncram (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Also where your NRIS2013a data does not include coordinates (which is fine, as we often/usually have coordinates figured out some other way), could you possibly please include a commented out line for the coordinates, as in:
 * or just
 * to make it easier for an editor like me to put in coords (probably copy-pasting from the county list-article).
 * to make it easier for an editor like me to put in coords (probably copy-pasting from the county list-article).
 * to make it easier for an editor like me to put in coords (probably copy-pasting from the county list-article).


 * Also, unless you are making a judgment that the default should be not to display a map, and not to use the USA option, could you please include the equivalent of:
 * | locmapin = Kentucky#USA
 * By the way "| locmapin = Washington" seems to work fine without requiring "(state)". On the other hand, I don't mind if you are exercising judgment that the default should be otherwise.  But even then you might include just a blank entry:
 * | locmapin =
 * to make it easier for an editor to customize if they like. --Doncram (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Also where the NRHP reference is now included (thanks for that!) the current intro is:
 * Optional reference text:
 * but there have been a case or two where the reference didn't work and editor(s) have pasted it in then not checked it, so I wonder if you could modify the intro to something like:
 * Optional reference text (please confirm this works and consider modifying as appropriate to describe the linked text and photos, or please delete it; don't leave a bad reference.):
 * But these are all relatively minor. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)