User talk:Elkman/Archive16



Hi. This is my talk page. If you ask a question here, you're most likely to get a response here, so you might want to put this page on your watchlist.

Ref in Template
Hello: Hope you had a nice vacation. When you have a chance, please look at revision by AnomieBOT on Revision history of Building at 409 West Baltimore Street, Nov 7, 2009. The bot moved the NRIS ref from the template to the end of a section of the article. Not sure what I'm supposed to do about the remaining articles I've prepared that also have this characteristic.--Pubdog (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places for further discussion of this topic. Sorry for posting during your time off.--Pubdog (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked out that discussion. It looks like things are pretty much under control there. It doesn't look like I need to change anything in the infobox generator, but if I do, remind me when I get back from South Padre Island. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this. Sorry to have bothered you.  Enjoy your vacation!--Pubdog (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Houses?
Welcome back. I hope you relaxed and ignored the world and Wikipedia. This is in the category of "report all anomalies" -- I don't know if it's a problem with your tool, with NRIS, or not a problem at all. The following five lighthouses in New York State come out of your tool with Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in New York. Easy enough to fix, but, as I said, not what you'd expect: . . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Barcelona Lighthouse and Keeper's Cottage
 * Fire Island Light Station
 * Genesee Lighthouse
 * Point Gratiot Lighthouse Complex
 * Selkirk Lighthouse
 * Those are coming up as houses because one component of those properties is a single dwelling, even though the whole property isn't a house. For example, Genesee Lighthouse includes a house for the lighthouse keeper, so that's probably where the house reference comes from.  I could probably modify the query so it only includes properties whose sole function is "single dwelling", but that might exclude some properties that include outbuildings or something like that.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha. I understand.  Since only around 1% of the NRHP listings are lighthouses, it may not be worth doing anything.  It's another illustration of the inconsistency of the listings -- virtually all lighthouses had keeper's quarters, either integral, attached, or detached. Thanks, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  12:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

MQ at generator?
Just discovered that the generator has an option of "MQ" for state. Where's that? When I tried to put in "House", to see if it would come up with anything for a geographic reference, it began to give me a list of houses in Massachusetts. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the country of Morocco. I don't know where they get the "MQ" from, but there's only one property there: the American Legation, Tangier.  (I had to do a direct SQL query to find that in the database, since I don't have a query tool for everything in a state.)
 * As far as the listing of houses in Massachusetts goes, that's coming up because I have a query by alternate name in case the first query doesn't come up. For example, if I'm looking for the Batcave in the state of New York, it might actually be listed in the National Register as "Wayne, Bruce, House", with an alternate name of "Batcave".  The problem is that the alternate name query apparently doesn't check the state, so it might also find Batcaves in Texas, California, and anywhere else there might be a Batcave.  I think that's a bug that I need to fix.  (Also, fictional residences of superheroes aren't listed on the National Register, but that's the first example I could think of.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

Elkman down
Hello, I believe NRHP Query went down about 5 minutes ago. Best wishes and enjoy your T'Giving!--Pubdog (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * back up ... never mind--Pubdog (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI: History of Minnesota
FYI: I was trying to incorporate some content from History of Minnesota into another article and found some problems with the references. Specifically a lot of the references mention whole books without explicit page numbers. I had mentioned this to someone on the FAC who seemed to agree this doesn't meet FA standards (the specific statement was that this passed FA at a time when the standards were lower and the standards have since been raised).

Anyway, I don't know if the article is going to be re-evaluated but if you still have an interest in this article you might want to look at improving the referencing. For selfish reasons, of course, if the references are fixed soon it saves me the trouble of having to do extra research on my article. ;-)

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can get around to updating the article at some point with page numbers. I'll probably have to do a lot of digging, though, since I used a lot of references from the three books.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI: I just put out a draft of the article I've been working on: Territorial era of Minnesota. Thought you might be interested. It still needs work, particularly in adding references, but I think it is pretty "complete" at this point.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Listed/delisted help, please?
According to the database, the John Wanamaker House in Philadelphia (nomination form) has been removed from the Register. However, I'm quite confused by the situation. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission says that it's still listed, and as far as I've ever seen, the date given for delisted properties is the date when they were delisted, but its reference number is 78 something, and the date given is 1 January 1978 — is it possible that it was listed and delisted on the same day? I don't have any reason to think that it's a problem with the generator; I'm just asking with hopes that you'll understand the situation better than I do. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know the specifics of any of these situations, but I did a SQL query for properties in Pennsylvania removed from the National Register. It sort of appears that for properties delisted before 1978, the "certdate" field is equal to the date it was originally listed on the National Register.  After 1978 or so, they started tracking the delisting date more effectively.  I think this implies they weren't tracking delistings until they realized there would be properties removed from the National Register.  Here's a list of those properties in Pennsylvania:

select propmain.refnum,certdate,resname,certcd,statecd from propmain,countyd where propmain.refnum = countyd.refnum and statecd = 'PA' and certcd = 'RN' order by certdate; +--+--+++-+ +--+--+++-+ +--+--+++-+ 61 rows in set (0.23 sec) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * refnum  | certdate | resname                                            | certcd | statecd |
 * 73002281 | 19730101 | Nonnemaker House                                  | RN     | PA      |
 * 74002330 | 19740101 | Anselm Hall                                       | RN     | PA      |
 * 74002335 | 19740101 | Upper House, Episcopal Academy                    | RN     | PA      |
 * 74002333 | 19740101 | Old Main, West Chester State College              | RN     | PA      |
 * 74002331 | 19740101 | Lycoming County Courthouse                        | RN     | PA      |
 * 74002334 | 19740101 | Twelfth Street Meetinghouse                       | RN     | PA      |
 * 74002332 | 19740101 | Nungesser, Valentine, House                       | RN     | PA      |
 * 76002286 | 19760101 | McCormick House                                   | RN     | PA      |
 * 78003440 | 19780101 | Odd Fellow's Hall                                 | RN     | PA      |
 * 78003441 | 19780101 | Wanamaker, John, House                            | RN     | PA      |
 * 77001191 | 19780104 | Sims, Joseph, House                               | RN     | PA      |
 * 76001647 | 19781218 | Keller House                                      | RN     | PA      |
 * 75001663 | 19790101 | Old Drexel Building                               | RN     | PA      |
 * 77001201 | 19790101 | Stone Arch Bridge, Starrucca Creek                | RN     | PA      |
 * 79002335 | 19810921 | Bushkill Gristmill                                | RN     | PA      |
 * 75001634 | 19830121 | DuBois Mansion                                    | RN     | PA      |
 * 74001804 | 19860508 | Pennsylvania Railroad Passenger Station           | RN     | PA      |
 * 80003446 | 19860627 | Haupt's Mill Covered Bridge                       | RN     | PA      |
 * 78002476 | 19860627 | Plumer Block                                      | RN     | PA      |
 * 79003175 | 19860627 | Welle Hess Covered Bridge No. S1                  | RN     | PA      |
 * 79002332 | 19860627 | Widener, P. A. B., Mansion                        | RN     | PA      |
 * 80003506 | 19860627 | Watkins-Maxey House                               | RN     | PA      |
 * 80003398 | 19860627 | Conewago Chapel Covered Bridge                    | RN     | PA      |
 * 78002387 | 19860627 | Telegraph Building                                | RN     | PA      |
 * 80003520 | 19860627 | Jackson's Mill Covered Bridge                     | RN     | PA      |
 * 78002362 | 19860627 | Beck, James, Round Barn                           | RN     | PA      |
 * 83002271 | 19860627 | Harrison Building                                 | RN     | PA      |
 * 78002433 | 19861218 | Worthington Hall                                  | RN     | PA      |
 * 71001102 | 19870728 | Society Hill Historic District (Boundary Decrease) | RN    | PA      |
 * 79002306 | 19870811 | Fountain Hill Opera House                         | RN     | PA      |
 * 78002409 | 19870915 | Delaware and Hudson Canal Gravity Railroad Shops  | RN     | PA      |
 * 80003646 | 19880616 | Greene, Gen., Hotel                               | RN     | PA      |
 * 80003415 | 19881013 | McDaniels Covered Bridge                          | RN     | PA      |
 * 80003505 | 19920309 | Crawford, James L., House                         | RN     | PA      |
 * 83002230 | 19920807 | Shadeland                                         | RN     | PA      |
 * 88000819 | 19930301 | Bridge in Ridley Park Borough                     | RN     | PA      |
 * 86002893 | 19940413 | Bristol Carpet Mills                              | RN     | PA      |
 * 80003439 | 19940601 | Twining Ford Covered Bridge                       | RN     | PA      |
 * 78002332 | 19960111 | Conewago Mass House                               | RN     | PA      |
 * 90000398 | 19960913 | Mount Union Refractories Company                  | RN     | PA      |
 * 80003493 | 19961129 | Carman Covered Bridge                             | RN     | PA      |
 * 82001535 | 19970605 | Senate Hotel                                      | RN     | PA      |
 * 85000075 | 19980309 | Shanna House                                      | RN     | PA      |
 * 83002235 | 19980310 | Greenawalt Building                               | RN     | PA      |
 * 87001255 | 19980428 | SS NIAGARA (freighter)                            | RN     | PA      |
 * 81000549 | 19980824 | Lehigh County Prison                              | RN     | PA      |
 * 83002234 | 20000120 | Sterrett-Hassinger House                          | RN     | PA      |
 * 87001970 | 20000120 | Linden Grove                                      | RN     | PA      |
 * 78002346 | 20000605 | Astor Theater                                     | RN     | PA      |
 * 76001605 | 20010103 | Dudley, Charles B., House                         | RN     | PA      |
 * 97000219 | 20020114 | Grand View Point Hotel                            | RN     | PA      |
 * 88000830 | 20020722 | Bridge in Plunkett's Creek Township               | RN     | PA      |
 * 78002410 | 20021111 | Dalton House                                      | RN     | PA      |
 * 88000822 | 20030321 | Bridge in Lynn Township                           | RN     | PA      |
 * 80004612 | 20031205 | Risser's Mill Covered Bridge                      | RN     | PA      |
 * 85002907 | 20040518 | Victoria Theatre                                  | RN     | PA      |
 * 77001511 | 20040721 | Kinzua Viaduct                                    | RN     | PA      |
 * 80003478 | 20040721 | White, Dr. James, House                           | RN     | PA      |
 * 80003440 | 20040819 | Mood's Covered Bridge                             | RN     | PA      |
 * 86003572 | 20061214 | Henryville House                                  | RN     | PA      |
 * 99000322 | 20071011 | Watt and Shand Department Store                   | RN     | PA      |
 * Thanks much; if nothing else, this shows me that this house isn't an isolated example. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your comment at Doncram's talk; I'm one who values your work and wishes that you were more active. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Request from Azskeptic
Hello: One of the 'multiple account' people took a whack at my page in November and I just caught it. Can you ban them from editing my page? He has posted all kinds of weirdness stalking me around the net. azskeptic --01:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Azskeptic (talk)--Azskeptic (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no longer an administrator, so I don't have any ability to protect your user page or talk page, or to block users. You might want to make a request at Administrators' noticeboard instead.
 * In fact, I'm no longer all that active on Wikipedia. I don't see the point in writing or editing articles any more.  It seems kind of pointless to put a lot of research into writing an article on an obscure building when nobody's going to read the article, or when everyone on Wikipedia Review is going to slag the editor(s) involved, or when there's going to be a month-long war about whether the article about the building should be merged to the article about the city.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Architectural styles
Hello Elkman, the discussion on categorization of architectural styles by U.S. state concluded to change the "Foo buildings in Bar" categories to "Foo architecture in Bar" for the Gothic Revival/Carpenter Gothic cats, and I expect that Greek Revival will follow. The categorization schemes are not consistent from state to state or style to style, nor is every state-by-state system complete, so if WP:NRHP is using a bot, some further manipulation may be required. The following styles are subdivided at the state level by style: Additionally, Category:Federal architecture is not presently subcategorized, but with over 670 entries I think it would be useful to do so— once the name has been made less ambiguous.
 * Category:Art Deco buildings in the United States
 * Category:Carpenter Gothic architecture in the United States
 * Category:Colonial Revival architecture
 * Category:Gothic Revival architecture in the United States
 * Category:Italianate architecture in the United States
 * Category:Queen Anne architecture in the United States
 * Category:Romanesque revival architecture in the United States

While tidying up some of these categories, I noticed that the NRHP categorization by building type is also somewhat inconsistent— in some cases there are subcategories for "Houses," "Buildings of religious function," and so forth, and in others they are absent. "Buildings of religious function" itself is a construction I've seen only within the NRHP categories, and am unsure if that is because it is an official designation that should be reflected in the categorization system or simply a generalized term. The umbrella category is Category:Religious buildings, although a great many subcategories retain the earlier and slightly inaccurate "Places of worship" formulation (e.g. the activities at a Buddhist meditation center or monastic refectory wouldn't necessarily be deemed "worship").

In any case, these are just observations of mine, not criticisms— too many contributors ignore the category system altogether, and I'm glad you take an interest. Thanks for participating at CfD. - choster (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Shingle style
Hi, I wonder if you could possibly generate a list of Shingle style / Shingle Style architecture in NRHP listings, and otherwise help roll out use of Category:Shingle Style architecture. I'd be willing to use AWB to check through a list of all the existing articles, to add that category and/or to change from slightly more general Category:Queen Anne architecture. If there are a lot, I am sure category-focused editors will eventually split by state. --doncram (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's already a query by architectural style at this query by style link. The infobox generator wasn't generating the Category:Shingle Style architecture for infoboxes, but I've updated it to do so now.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Note i've commented at Talk:Shingle Style architecture.  By the way, also i have noticed the generator is not adding categories for Greek Revival style or for Stick/Eastlake style (or at least there are articles previously generated without those, despite mention in the infobox itself).  Thanks again. --doncram (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Music of Minnesota FAR
Greetings, Elkman. You are still given as a participant in WikiProject Minnesota. I wonder if you would respond to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Minnesota. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for new output line in infobox generator
Could you add another line to the results given by the infobox generator, to show under which criterion/criteria a property was listed? I know that the infobox doesn't support such a line, but you already have a line (on the left side of the results page) for the number of contributing properties per listing; could you cause it to display the criteria on the left side? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can probably add that. It already lists whether a building is listed for architectural significance, and prints "Building is listed for architectural criteria" or "Building is not listed for architecture".  I can also query to see if the property is listed for association with an event or a person, or whether it's listed for information potential (e.g. an archaeological site).
 * I'm also going to put something in that separates out the architectural category by state if there are state categories, like Colonial Revival or Federal architecture by state, per the discussion above. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon me if I'm asking too much, but could you create a query (similar to http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/countylist.php) to produce a county-level table of "This property may not actually be listed on the National Register" sites? I often have trouble finding if there are any delisted sites in a county — if I don't know of any by name, I often will have to go to nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com and see if it lists any that aren't in our county lists — so this might be useful in expanding many of our county lists.  Thanks again!  Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"coord_parameters" output in your infobox generator
Hi Elkman, I've been working on some articles recently, and I've needed to use your infobox tool a lot to find reference numbers and other information. I've noticed that one of the lines you put in the infobox is. While I'm sure this was meant to help the coord template not freak out like it has done before, this is actually putting more strain on the template. The infobox already has the coord parameters hard-coded in it, and specifying anything overwrites that hard-coding. The code automatically puts this for coord_parameters:

region:US_type:landmark

The ConvertAbbrev/ISO 3166-2:US template takes the "locmapin" parameter (if it exists) and converts it to the state's 2 letter abbreviation, so if locmapin = California, the coord_parameters would be "region:US-CA_type:landmark". If an editor uses your infobox tool and doesn't delete your coord_parameters line, the infobox replaces the hard coding with the generic region:US instead of the more specific region:US-XX and thus puts more strain on the coord template (because more specific regions are better for the software). It would actually be better to remove this line of code from the infobox tool's output to make sure new infoboxes aren't putting more strain on the coord template than necessary. Do you think you could remove this line from the template, or is it there for some other reason? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone asked me to add it earlier; see User talk:Elkman/Archive15 for the discussion. I think he wanted it so it'd zoom in at a desired scale for NRHP properties.  If it's causing more trouble than it's worth, though, I'll take it out.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. In the discussion you linked to, he just said "for reasons we've discussed", so I'm not exactly sure why he wanted them, but with the code currently in place in the infobox, the scale produced is even smaller.. down to state level instead of national level. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I may well have been the one who asked for its addition. I don't care how we get there, but it would be nice if the NRHP infobox produced a coord call for a site that, when you click on it, and then click on Bing, Google, whatever, will call up a map that is at something like Landmark scale -- city blocks, not counties. I certainly understand (and have benchmarked) the coord issue in listings, and wouldn't want to add any extra computational load there, but in individual infoboxes I hope it wouldn't be a problem. I'm not jumping up and down about this -- just "It would be nice" -- and the choices that go into it I'll leave to the complex template experts. Thanks, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

New Durham Town Hall
Just curious, purely curious, not argumentative -- why'd you add an orphan tag here? I'm not at all disputing its being appropriate, just wondering why this one in particular -- surely there are hundreds of NRHP stubs that are in similar circumstances. . . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm using AutoWikiBrowser to update categories on a bunch of articles so they're in architecture categories by state, e.g. Category:Italianate architecture in New Hampshire. Apparently, the new version is adding an orphan tag to articles that have only one or two incoming links.  I don't really think it's necessary; I wouldn't have added the tag if I were editing the article by hand.  If I knew how to turn that option off, I would.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Uncheck the "Auto tag" option on the "Options" display and it should stop doing that. I personally uncheck all three of those "automatic changes" things, because I only want AWB to do the task I opened it for. :-) Killiondude (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering where those orphan tags came from. Took care of removing them from articles on my watchlist.--Pubdog (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. I like AWB a lot, but it does have some features that have side effects if you aren't careful. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Frenchman's Creek
Thanks for your help, Elkman. I will learn from my blunders and hope to make fewer of them in future. Regards, Flonto (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add external link to Kitesurfing locations
Hi. You may wish to participate in a proposal to add an external link to this article Talk:Kitesurfing_locations, Regards Peter Campbell 01:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Map
Are there more maps on the city's website? C T J F 8 3 chat 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was searching the city's web site for information that might say why the Riverview Terrace Historic District has significance, but it's hard to find out a lot more detail. This page of historic resources contains links to more maps, and it looks like they enumerate the historic buildings in the city's central business district.  I'm drawing a blank on the specific historic significance of Riverview Terrace, though.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, I can run to the library and look at the book sourced at the bottom of Neighborhoods of Davenport, Iowa and see if it has any more details. C T J F 8 3  chat 20:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are these maps uploadable on here? Not sure what rational to use, I'm not too good at that. C T J F 8 3  chat 20:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think those maps are uploadable directly from the City of Davenport web site, as they're a work of the city government. I don't know what kind of copyright they maintain over their work.  You could get someone to redraw the map using a GIS application and a data set.  I've done that sort of thing before, but I don't think I'll have time in the near future.  I've got a lot of irons in the fire right now.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess a link to the map is sufficient too. C T J F 8 3  chat 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

tb

 * response requested :) C T J F 8 3  chat 22:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC
While I agree that Doncram is the central figure in the recent controversies, I was trying to find an appropriate structure that addresses all of the issues in one place: Doncram, Polaron, Orlady, minimum standards for articles, appropriateness of merges and splits, and thresholds for forking. I had hoped that there was an RfC structure that was akin to the broader form taken by ArbCom actions, where a range of policies and behaviors are examined, as in the Speed of Light arbitration. While I wasn't involved in that, I was familiar with the participants and issues, having dealt with and blocked David Tombe at one time.

Since I'm the guy with a wall of text in their userspace, I'm the one on the spot to deal with that aspect. While Doncram and Polaron initially asked me to render a form of summary judgment on each item, the issues are broad and, once we get past Connecticut, virtually infinite (anything over a few hundred is for all practical purposes ∞). However, RfC doesn't suit the present situation well. It can deal with individual editors, one at a time, but I'm looking at something a bit broader.

I think you've stated the issues concerning Doncram well; however, short of opening another couple of RfC/U's, I'm not sure how far we'll get toward a productive conclusion.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've begun to put together an outline for an RfC on the NRHP content disputes at User:Acroterion/RfC NRHP, to be moved to some more appropriate place once it's developed. I'll be working on it in between bouts of snow shoveling, and you're encouraged to contribute as you desire.   Acroterion  (talk)  17:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Refnum in NRIS database but missing from generator?
I'm attempting to track down the Memorial United Methodist Church, which appears on the Ohio Historical Society website but doesn't appear in your generator, either as listed or possibly-not-listed. Since it's listed in Caledonia, Ohio, I searched the COUNTYD table of the NRIS database (the full-size one with the .dbf files) for Caledonia and got two refnums: 78002131 (the Caledonia Bowstring Bridge, which is listed) and 65007185, which doesn't appear either in the PROPMAIN table or in your generator. Its name appears to be the Caledonia Village Hall, according to the DOEMAIN table; but that name isn't in PROPMAIN either. Have you ever encountered a situation like this before? Nyttend (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding anything about it, either when I check the property tables or when I check through MPS submissions. The church's own web site doesn't say anything about being on the National Register, either.  I don't know what the XXXXXX35 reference number means in the Ohio Historical Society web site.  Perhaps they have documentation on their web site for some reason unrelated to being on the National Register, like they were studying it for eligibility or something.  Otherwise, I'm stumped.  You might need to contact the Ohio Historical Society directly to see what's up with this phantom listing.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't check, but maybe that's the refnum to an MPS? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked, but I think the MPS numbers are in the 64xxxxxx range. The 65xxxxxx range seems to refer to stuff in the DOEMAIN table, but I don't remember what those were offhand.  (Maybe something to do with the Department of Energy, but that's a wild guess.)  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I encountered this situation because I discovered some time ago that the OHS website includes delisted properties, so I thought it would be useful to check to see how many delisted properties there were; so far I've caught nine that weren't previously on any of the Ohio county lists. I was quite surprised to find that it didn't appear anywhere, whether in NRIS or not, so I wondered if perhaps I'd done something wrongly.  Since I began this thread, I've checked the 1966-1978, 1979-1980, and 1980-1981 listings pages, due to (1) the reference number beginning with 65, and (2) the church's OHS page saying that it was listed in 1979; however, there's nothing there for either of them.  Thanks for the help!  Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

NRHP's with the same name
I'm looking for other NRHP railroad stations that have the name Hartford & New Haven Railroad Depot, or something similar besides the one in Windsor, Connecticut. Can you find any? DanTD (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are only two that I can find. There's Hartford & New Haven Railroad Depot in Windsor, refnum 88001479, and Hartford & New Haven Railroad--Freight Depot, also in Windsor, with refnum 88001505.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No variations without the ampersand either, hmm? Well, there goes my plans for a dab page. DanTD (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, no variations without the ampersand. In fact, there are only five depots in Connecticut on the National Register.  Besides these two, there are also Union Depot in New Canaan, Simsbury Railroad Depot in Simsbury, and Newington Junction Railroad Depot in Newington.  Apparently, trains in Connecticut stopped only at little shacks that were torn down after passenger service ended, or Amtrak replaced them with ugly concrete platforms.  Or maybe those depots are part of cities' historic districts.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a dab page at Hartford & New Haven Railroad Depot, currently a redirect to the Windsor station, would be helpful. Obviously there are many places which are known as, or which have been known as, "Hartford & New Haven Railroad Depot", besides the Windsor one.  You can include similarly named places such as the other Windsor one, which could easily be confused, on a dab page, too, IMHO.  I often create "combo" dab pages, e.g. in editing today, a dab covering all places named "The American Club" along with all places named "American Club", with redirects from alternate names to the combo dab.  Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't help. There are only two Hartford & New Haven Railroad depots on the National Register.  (I know, because I ran some SQL to check it.)  The ones in Windsor are right across the street from each other: the freight depot, and the passenger depot.  If there are others, they aren't on the National Register, or they don't have articles yet.  It isn't "obvious" that there other places called the Hartford & New Haven Railroad Depot.  As an example from a much larger railroad, there are quite a few Great Northern Depots, 14 of which are on the National Register, but many that aren't.  We don't need disambiguation pages that list everything until those articles are actually written.  The state or county list articles already link to those redlink pages.  At this point, we need actual encyclopedic content, not disambiguation pages with redlinks.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think, Doncram, perhaps you have not checked the article on the Hartford and New Haven Railroad? Although it "was an important direct predecessor of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad", it ceased operations under that name in 1872, so most, maybe all, of the other stations in Connecticut on its tracks would be better known by the New York, New Haven and Hartford name or perhaps just "New Haven" which is what the New York, New Haven and Hartford called itself. Indeed one might wonder if the station in Windsor is actually called by the older name. . . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. However, it still seems inappropriate to have "Hartford & New Haven Railroad Depot" redirect to the one in Windsor, which is a surprising redirect for readers, generally to be avoided.  The dab page which could replace the redirect should list the few having names closest to that, and also state something like "...or it may refer to other railroad stations under name of New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad or New Haven Railroad or other predecessor and successor railroad names." --doncram (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

disambiguation generator help
Hi Elkman -- I know you are occasionally scanning my contributions or otherwise finding your way to disambiguation pages i have recently developed. I develop disambiguation pages upon request to my Talk page or upon noticing items in a cleanup category, and also I come across needs for disambiguation pretty much randomly. As I think you know, when a new disambiguation page is developed it is often necessary to create one or two stub articles so that not all entries are red-links. Otherwise, disambiguation-focussed editors will put it up for deletion, causing a lot of overhead until the AFD closes in favor of Keep, because the disambiguation is pretty much always justified. I am perfectly happy to see you refining articles like the Home Economics Building (Torrance, California) one which i had created as a minimal stub for the disambiguation page support reason. Thanks!

I wonder if I could ask for your help, though, in refining your disambiguation page generator. For example, could you refine it so that it would generate a page exactly like this first version of "Home Economics Building" dab page, which was created by Sanfranman59. I think Sanfranman uses your generator to create new dab articles, then refines them to give more specific supporting bluelinks. I hope it might be relatively easy, programming-wise, for you to create a draft dab page with supporting bluelinks including county names, giving all entries having a given phrase such as "Home Economics". Those will usually require some more editing, to pare off items that aren't relevant and to edit the entries in the dab page. Also it won't eliminate need for related editing, as for Georgia state counties where a redirect from the county name to an alphabetical chunk of counties will need to be created. But if you could provide that it would still save steps and be a big help i think. Then it would be easier for Sanfranman59 and others to use your dab generator in creating new dabs where needed.

It would also be useful in helping resolving controversy over existing dabs. I think you know that for all NRHP names occuring more than 5 times, dab page have already been created. There remain only a few cases where 2 or 3 or 4 NRHP places have the same name and a new dab is needed, because almost all of those have been created, too. But there is need for new dabs all the time as new NRHP places get listed, and as the same name gets used by a non-NRHP place. And there also is a base of dab pages previously created where there are red-links with supporting bluelinks, where the supporting bluelinks are not specific to county. As you may know, those are causing some contention from time to time. It would be a big help, i think, to have your dab generator able to produce county-specific bluelinks to use as material for copy-pasting in the process of fixing up any of those red-link items. That would reduce the need for a wp:botrequest that I made which could also potentially help with updating dab pages as county list articles get split out, but which might be hard for bot-programmers to program. If you can help, I'd appreciate it. Either way, thanks as always for your providing the helpful tools of your system. --doncram (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I'd rather not get caught up in the contention. I've seen both sides of the argument: your side is that we need lists of all entities like "Home Economics Building" or "Industrial Arts Building", whereas the other side says that we don't need disambiguation unless there are really two or three or many more pages that all have the same name.  In the case of something like Great Northern Depot, for instance, there are still some pages that link to "Great Northern Depot" or some variation of it (like "Great Northern Railway Depot").  Also, when some user comes in from the outside world, and they're searching for "Great Northern Depot", then a disambiguation page would make sense.  That sort of thing needs to be applied judiciously.  On the other hand, Special:Whatlinkshere/Home Economics Building points out only one page that links to Home Economics Building -- and that's a project page.  I think we need to pay more attention to the state and county lists that contain ambiguous links, like National Register of Historic Places listings in Warren County, Kentucky and National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles County, California, and fix those links there.  If we do that, then there isn't any use for a disambiguation page.
 * Another part of the contention is that the NRHP project has created some pretty thin stubs to support disambiguation pages. I believe Acroterion and Orlady have commented on this, with varying degrees of diplomacy.  I'd rather not write something automated that produces thin stubs.
 * In any case, I wouldn't have time to program something like this for at least the next week. I'm leaving on vacation Thursday morning, and I'll be gone until next Wednesday.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As a small technical matter, there in fact should be no inbound links to a disambiguation page. Creating a disambiguation page often helps in identifying that multiple articles are pointing to the dab page name, but then each of those inbound links should ideally be adjusted to point to the outgoing target article names listed on the dab.  So the Home Economics Building dab having no inbound links from mainspace is exactly what is desired.  The dab page is still helpful:  if someone else starts up an article about a Home Economics building somewhere else, they will encounter this dab page and see how to name their article compatibly.  There are 3 NRHP-listed places having exactly the name Home Economics Building, and no one is wp:PRIMARYUSAGE, so in fact a dab page is necessary.  It is better than putting "For other uses..." type disambiguation hatnotes in each one of the articles eventually created, pointing to all the other ones.  And it can be set up and finished, so that no disambiguation hatnote is needed in any of the articles.  And while I further think it is helpful to include the other items having the "Home Economics Building" phrase in their name, I agree that others could differ about that, but i don't think that is the center of any serious contention, relative to other matters like supporting bluelinks for redlink items.


 * But okay, it's fair enough if you do not want to update the NRHP disambiguation generator that you offer. We are all volunteers here, and it is not necessary or helpful for everyone to get involved in the nuances of disambiguation rules and practices.


 * But I think it is also fair for me to comment back, and I hope you don't mind. I mean to be constructive in giving you this feedback.  In fact, I think you are pretty deeply involved in contention around the area of disambiguation policy and practices already.  Besides your indirect comment above about the thin stubs, over the past year, you have commented negatively many many times about my having created stub articles that you do not like, in my working to build disambiguation.  As you know, I have tried to accomodate you by giving you notice of any Minnesota stub articles created in that process.  I don't unduly mind an occasional sour comment, such as the edit summary you put into the Home Economics Building (Torrance, California) article.  You're entitled to your opinion, and you don't have to justify it by delving deeply into why disambiguation pages are needed and why related stub articles are also needed.


 * However you have produced a kind of steady drumbeat of negativity about me and my creating stub articles, which contributes to the contentious air. That gives credence to others that something about what I have been doing with disambiguation is wrong, or that what i do is wrong and bad in general.  So I think it contributes indirectly, for example, to the willingness of Orlady recently to enter into a discussion between me and Station1, a dab-focussed editor, and for Orlady to eventually suggest that disambiguation of NRHP items should occur only "in Project space, where they won't be detrimental to the experience of encyclopedia users."  If you really considered that, that's an untenable position, and it certainly is negative and contentious:  it's similar to other statements that my work is vandalism which were also unjustified IMO.  You're not directly responsible for what Orlady says, but I do think your commenting negatively about stubs does contribute indirectly.  And, for gosh sake, you opened a RFC/U about me, with statements indicating that you believe I am unduly involved in contention, and that the goal should be to develop high quality articles (perhaps implying that my work in disambiguation and stubbing is not high quality, while I feel it is very useful work), and so on.  Again, I don't unduly mind.  But, it seems unfair for you to go on repeatedly about my having created stub articles supporting disambiguation, and for you to hold it against me that I am involved in occasional disagreements with other editors about disambiguation rules/practices/purposes, if you don't want to get into understanding disambiguation rules/practices/ purposes, yourself.


 * And here you have an opportunity to be a bit helpful with disambiguation, by adjusting your dab generator, in a way that might help reduce one aspect of contention about disambiguation (namely about the specificity of supporting bluelinks). I don't want to imply that your making a change will help a whole lot--I am not sure at all that it would be that important.  But I don't think your making an adjustment would put you in the middle of anything much, or would indicate that you are supporting the creation of minimal stub articles.  The disambiguation pages have been created already, and new ones will be created continuously, with no effect from your making a change now.  I myself don't actually use your dab generator at all.  Your refining it might make it more useful for others who might use it, and it might be helpful for me in updating already-existing dabs to address occasional complaints of editors like Station1 about the supporting bluelinks issue.


 * Anyhow, there's no rush, and you mentioned you are departing, so I don't at all expect you to consider all this and to get all involved now, and maybe not even later. There are certainly more important things in life, and even in wikipedia.  Hope you have a great vacation.  Best regards, --doncram (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had a chance to think about this while I've been on vacation. Unfortunately, that means I've been thinking about this while on vacation.  So, here's a stab at it:


 * First off: I stand by my assertion that the purpose of Wikipedia is to produce high quality encyclopedia articles. That doesn't mean that I consider your work to be of low quality, or that your time is not worthwhile.  What I mean is that each article should ideally be complete enough to cover the subject without having to refer the reader to outside links or sites.  It's the goal that Featured article status is all about.  Obviously, not every article on Wikipedia is going to become a featured article, and there isn't enough time to fully research every possible subject.  More people are reading History of Minnesota than are reading Seventh Street Improvement Arches, for example.  On the other hand, the Seventh Street Improvement Arches are an interesting historic bridge that people might have an interest in, if they ever stumble upon the topic.


 * This leads to my next thought: The focus of Wikipedia's articles should be on the reader, not on internal Wikipedia processes. An article, at its first publishing on Wikipedia, should be at least enough of a stub to give the reader a basic overview of the topic.  That's why I didn't like the first version of the Home Economics Building in Torrance, California -- the article didn't even identify that it was a building in a historically important high school that's been used in movie productions.


 * Speaking of being incomplete, someone else wants to use this Internet kiosk, so I have to cut this short. I'll write more later.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On second thought, maybe I won't write more later. I think you've already decided what you want to do in respect to creating disambiguation pages, and that's to write pages with a bunch of red links except for one that's blue (to keep the disambiguation page from being deleted).  Moreover, I don't think you want to discuss this or consider any other opinions, because you'd consider that adding to the contention.  In other words, your feelings would get hurt.


 * Let me ask this one question, though: Do you think the state of the art in NRHP articles is just to provide an infobox, the categories and standard templates, and a short description that doesn't necessarily have to include the history or the architecture of the property in mind? If that's your view, and if I'm no longer allowed to comment on that (lest I be viewed as contentious), then I may have to seriously reconsider my involvement in this project. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, not at all that i would not want to discuss. I was in fact happy to be having some real conversation with you, but am a bit torn about pulling you out of your vacation mode. --doncram (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking from the Land of Dirty Snow, this should be the last thing you should worry about. There are a few things I might add here, but they can all wait until you get back to your frozen northern tundra.  Acroterion  (talk)  05:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've thought about it more, too. I am kind of taken aback, Elkman, that you seem to think that the disambiguation system that has been developed, and the continuation of its development, are under question.  I would like to understand what are your concerns, at least so we could talk it out a bit, and so that you would not experience my creating new disambiguation pages in a negative manner, which your comments above suggest.  I was operating under the assumption that you are not much interested in disambiguation.  I don't see what should be done differently--it seems pretty clear to me and I think to others working on disambiguation (including Sanfranman59 and Nyttend most extensively) that the disambiguation system is a necessary complement to the system of NRHP list-articles -- but I am concerned that you feel something is wrong, or that you are unsure whether something is really wrong.  I think maybe you are not aware of Sanfranman and Nyttend and others working to extend the system too?


 * Generally, about disambiguation of NRHP names, I have thought that i was doing a really great job developing disambiguation pages covering NRHP places, and in coordinating with the dab-focussed editors at WikiProject Disambiguation, pretty much all on my own. I did the bulk of NRHP disambiguation page development during March-July 2009, during and following the campaign with others that finished out NRHP list-articles in table format.  Since then i didn't do much except upon request from Sanfranman and Nyttend.  I have recently returned to actively looking for dabs needed, and have done some more dabbing which you are noticing.  I just recently created two dab pages that I think could serve as good examples/foci for some discussion: Patterson House and Holland House.  I provided some notes about them at Talk:Patterson House and Talk:Holland House.  You might observe, fairly, that those are lists of mostly red-links.  I think that is fine;  they serve a need, complementary to the NRHP list-tables (which are lists of mostly red-links).  I was preparing those two for discussion with Station1 and other dab-focused editors, who seem to have concern about dab page formatting-level issues on a very low level, and also for discussing the content coverage.  (For example, whether a header should read "in the United States (by state then city)" vs. whether some different formatting of the same header text would be strongly preferred for some reason (which i don't particularly care about, but some do).  And, whether the many variations such as "J. W. Patterson House" should be listed on the same page as the few places named exactly "Patterson House". (which i do care about, as I wish for readers to be able to find all the places that are likely known as "Patterson House".) )  I didn't and still don't really believe you are interested in those formatting and dab content issues, but maybe you are.


 * As far as I can tell, you are mostly discontent with the stubs that I and sometimes others have created to defend the existence of dab pages against dab-focussed editors (who pointedly do not place any value at all upon providing disambiguation amongst NRHP places having the same or similar names, unless there are already articles in place about all of them). I get that you would strongly prefer for any such stubs to be good articles.  But, my view is that all NRHP stub articles should be improved/expanded.  I don't see why these dab-support-related stubs, which serve a good and necessary purpose, need to be the ones that are improved first.  It seems efficient to create the stubs needed to support dabs using just NRIS info, and work elsewhere to develop better articles.  Like, in Connecticut there are now NRHP docs available for almost all NRHP places, so it would seem more productive to do an article development drive there.  Or like in New York State, where Pubdog mostly but me and others too are working to do good decent starter articles for every NRHP in the state.  I'd be open to having some collaborative effort to improve stubs.


 * But about dabs, I think it's most efficient to create a dab page instantly upon its need becoming apparent. (Actually i can't really imagine a different way of operating for that.  Would you prefer a management list of dabs needed, somewhere, not to be started until a group of involved editors created a good starter article?  I can't imagine getting that kind of help, it would just be unnecessary bureaucracy.)  As you know, I already did create dab pages for every NRHP name having more than 5 occurences, using the report you once created.  It would make a ton of sense to generate a report of every NRHP name having 4, 3, or 2 occurences, too, and to create the dab pages for any of those that are still missing, right now, too.  I actually think it would be helpful if you would do that now, but I also don't want to make you feel put upon, if you're not interested in assisting with disambiguation.  Don't you think that it is helpful, though, for general purpose of devleoping NRHP articles, to put in place the dab page for Patterson House, which clarifies the two NRHP places having exactly that name, should get different article titles, as specified on the dab page?  You might not want to do it yourself, which is fine, but the dab should exist, right?  I certainly do not mean to offend you in any way by proceeding with developing such dab pages.


 * Sorry this is long. There is no urgency to talk this out right now, but I did want to respond to you.  About your 2nd question regarding state of the art, i could reply another time;  i think that is different than talking about disambiguation. --doncram (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right in assuming that I generally don't care about the disambiguation pages. Generally, it doesn't matter to me if they're listed by state then city, or by city then state, or if they're ordered by architectural style or the color of the stone used in their construction. The part that I am concerned with, though, is the very thin stubs that are being created to support disambiguation pages. That's why I asked the question if it's really the state of the art for NRHP articles to just include an infobox and a short description of the property that doesn't have to cover any of the history. I'd like to hear your answer to the question.

I'd write more in response to the current wall of text, but it's midnight, I just got home after a delayed flight, and I had to clean up a bunch of the stuff that I brought on vacation. Also, as soon as I get to work tomorrow, I have a big fiasco to deal with. Just tell me what you think should be the proper content in a stub-class NRHP article. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 06:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't plan on getting into this conversation any more than I am about to do so, but why do we even need any stubs? Can you not just take the extra time to at least make a start article with some flesh before moving on to the next dab page? I believe Elkman and I see this nearly the same way (if you don't mind me interpreting your words) in as much as we are both willing to allow the redlink dab pages to exist, but we don't support the way you've been treating the bluelinks on those dab pages. What if you slowed down stub/dab creation and focused on just a few articles (actual articles) that you can expand. I'm sure if one or two decently expanded articles exist on a dab page with many redlinks, you'd have a lot fewer complaints from non-NRHP editors... just a thought. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To Dudemanfellabra: There are absolutely no complaints from non-NRHP editors, about any dab entries where there is a minimal stub article.  The non-NRHP editors who arrive care nothing about content on the article pages.  The newest ones are puzzled about there being red-link entries.  They would be hugely happy to have minimal stub articles created for every item on a disambiguation page.  It is only some NRHP editors (others besides Elkman too) who dislike minimal stubs;  others feel more strongly than i do that minimal stubs are very useful;  I am actually more in the middle:  i am creating stub articles where necessary for a purpose like supporting disambiguation.  About why need any stubs to support disambiguation, well a German editor pointed out they don't require any stubs for a dab page on German wikipedia, but the best I could work out with Disambiguation-focussed editors in some big long negotiations is that there must be at least one or two.  About why have disambiguation, well that is going very basic, and it gets towards being impossible to answer (like, why have a wikipedia?).  We have disambiguation because there are multiple notable topics having the same or very similar names, and within the wikipedia we want to clarify for readers and editors what the topics are, and to show whether there is yet an article or not for each one. --doncram (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To not avoid Elkman's repeated question: A stub-class NRHP article is one which provides "A very basic description of the topic", like perhaps merely that a place is a building or other historic site that is listed on the NRHP.  For the reader, this "Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition."  For these articles, editing suggestion is: "Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority."


 * About the state of the art in stubs created, it depends where and for what purpose, but there is a minimum easily achievable. The standard is affected greatly by the state-of-art of the Elkman NRHP infobox generator.  I have greatly affected the state-of-the-art there, by giving many suggestions/requests that you have incorporated (about allowing NHL designation where relevant in the infobox, about map display, about countless other items).  I've also made other suggestions that were not incorporated, which is okay, and I don't often make suggestions any more.  I think it was Dudemanfellabra who was also involved in discussion about the Elkman output for supporting Talk pages:  I had shared my standard for Talk page info including wikiprojects and reqphoto which i first put into article and moved to Talk page, and I think it was Dudemanfellabra saying to put that in a separate box in the output instead.  (Of course that was fine and good.)


 * For stubs on National Historic Landmarks which I and others created in drive completed July 4, 2009, we defined a minimum standard to include infobox and NHLSUM webpage reference. For stubs in New York State that Pubdog is creating, minimum standard apparent is to have some explanation of significance based on NRHP document reference that is available and included.  I affected the standard that Pubdog has been accomplishing by editing multiple early ones to add the MPS/MRA document URL available for them, and then Pubdog was doing that for other articles, and then the MPS/MRA drive at wp:MPS continued and then Elkman took the output from that to incorporate it into the NRHP generator so now all new articles where MPS doc is known to be available reflect the URL).  For stubs in Massachusetts created by one editor, it was very minimal NRIS-based stubs with infoboxes (I expressed concerns about that stub-creation drive, at the time, in part because I felt that better quality stubs were then doable:  for example, the articles were being created without bothering to copy-paste the Talk page setup too).  My point is:  I do care about minimum standards, and I have done a helluva lot more than almost anyone else to develop minimum standards to be higher.


 * About the NRHP stubs I create to support disambiguation, I do those quickly using the NRHP generator, but then I further refine the NRHP generator output in several ways. For HD articles, I add "Category:Historic districts in STATE", which is not yet part of NRHP generator output.  For HD articles, I take the time to compose statements about numbers of contributing buildings, objects, and area of district, where such info is available in left-hand-side output, which could easily be included automatically in cut-and-paste-ready right-hand-side, but which is not there provided.  If I notice the NRIS info mentions Greek Revival architecture, I add "Category:Greek Revival architecture" which is not part of Elkman categories added in cut-and-paste-ready section.  I also wikilink other things and add categories like "Category:Lustron houses", where I have knowledge to do so.  The Elkman generator output for the most part defines the minimum standard for NRHP articles;  I make a point to go a little beyond where state-of-the-art can and should be higher.  There are worse NRHP stubs out there than the ones I've created for disambiguation support.


 * What I do not do is take responsibility for adding NRHP document to stubs created for disambiguation support. I do not commit to explaining significance of each of these sites (which usually requires consulting NRHP document).  I have myself added far far far FAR more NRHP document references to articles than anyone else, enabling development of explanations of significance, but I am just one person and I cannot do it for all, especially in states where NRHP documents are not available on-line.  In Connecticut, I haven't counted, but I am the only editor actively adding NRHP documents and i have probably added hundreds.  One editor who has badgered me repeatedly there (i think emboldened by your steady drumbeat of criticism about my creating stubs), has both generally refused to go along with deletion of redirects (so that just a redlink would show, so that a stub article will not be required) and has only a few times ever added a NRHP document towards improving stub articles.


 * I think what you could be getting at, is you want for there to be a stub cleanup drive, to improve quality of NRHP stub articles. Then the next questions are whether anyone would join you in that, and where to start, what to prioritize.  I would definitely support and participate in any reasonable NRHP stub cleanup drive.  I have led and/or participated in many other cleanup drives, or enhancement drives like finding all the available HABS pics to add in a county.  However, I do not believe there would be considered consensus among NRHP editors for stopping the expansion of disambiguation, and for stopping the creation of stubs needed to support disambiguation.  In fact, the completion of disambiguation and the completion of necessary support should probably be supported, in order to get past the somewhat artificial, manufactured-from-misunderstanding "issue" about NRHP disambiguation, if there is one.


 * Do either/both of you want to propose and lead a stub cleanup drive? --doncram (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I will probably watch here but may not respond further. I thought we were talking for real, but then after i save the last edit, I see the notice "I'm back from vacation, but I'm disgusted with this place." now displaying at top of this Talk page.  Elkman, I assume you mean to me, that you are disgusted with me.  I am not vain, but I don't know who else you would be addressing.  Or that you are wanting to say to others that you are disgusted with me.  Well, it's okay for you to be sour and to make sour complaining remarks at your talk page, but then also I will probably choose not to participate further here. --doncram (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you were the sole reason for my disgust. But if I need to keep walking on eggshells and overanalyze every thing I'm about to say, so I'll avoid hurting your feelings, then that's a good reason for me not to want to contribute.  And, apparently I even need to watch the things that Orlady and Station1 say.  I've been getting the impression for a long time that everything has to be done your way, or if not, then there has to be a big hunk of text to debate the issue.  I don't want to spend the time reading big walls of text.  If I had the choice of spending 30 minutes reading a debate and having to formulate an opinion and then express it, or spending 30 minutes reading source material for Hibbing High School and finding a photo and then writing an article about it, then the article about Hibbing High School would win out.  Besides, more people would eventually read the article than the project-space walls of text.
 * You talk a lot about the possibility of good editors being driven away, but when you see sour remarks on my page, it doesn't cross your mind that you're driving me away from the project. No, it's just another insult that you're going to take personally.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing that and otherwise responding. Sorry for maybe being too sensitive.  Yeah, I've spent a lot of time writing in user talk and project talk space, and it often seems largely like wasted effort.  Most of all that has been communicating with a few editors who do not actually ever intend to write articles about NRHP places, and who have never once AFAIK ever written even a DYK amount about the significance and details of any NRHP. (Maybe i shouldn't be saying this, blowing off steam.  And i could possibly be wrong by a little, but I believe that is basically true, and I am really wondering why i have been trying to communicate there.)  It is important that u, and I, have both actually written articles and developed positive stuff, and we both should do more of that.  It's okay if you don't want to understand the issues around doing disambiguation, and why that leads to creation of stub articles.  I think i understand what your objection is;  I just disagree that it is valid to object to there being disambiguation and stub articles, when you think through the implications.  We can agree to disagree, without trying to come to great understandings. --doncram (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Doncram misunderstands me — the only thing I do with disambiguation pages is notifying him of ambiguous NRHP names. I really couldn't care much less myself.  Conversely, I could care a lot less about the creation of tons of stubs; I don't think it's a good idea to write miniscule articles for the purpose of supporting all the links on a disambiguation page. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elkman. I hope you had a good vacation. Welcome back! :) I read through the arguments and they are interesting. But ultimately the only problem I see is with the dispute itself. Highly productive editros are getting caught up in arguments over something relatively minor. I just don't see a level of harm from creating stubby stubs of stubby disambig pages that makes it worth getting into a dispute or getting frustrated over. Some editors don't like them while other editors think they are useful as starts and a kind of placeholder providing a foundation for expansion. I see a philosophical disagreement that is unwinnable. Personally, I don't see any real harm in having incomplete work, but I admit I am biased as Chairman of the incomplete work committee. We could have similar arguments over boxen, naming formats, merges v. stand-alones etc. etc. etc. I just don't see a need for perfect agreement, and I think there's too much enjoyable work and collaboration to be done to get into the quicksand of philosophical differences. Elkman your tool for architect searches has been very useful to me and many others. You seem to be a masterful editor who creates high quality articles and extraordinary tools. You communicate clearly and effectively. And Doncram does great work also. I hope that at some point in the near future you can all have a good laugh at the frustration and arguments over these issues. For people who have so much in common and have done so much good work to worry about the wrinkles just doesn't seem worth it. I apologize in advance for sticking my nose in, but maybe it will help unite to opposing parties at least in so far as disagreeing with me and my involvement. :) Cheers. Thanks again to all concerned for the good work and collegial assistance with my sloppy efforts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul of Glacier NP stuff
Elkman...myself and Mike Cline especially have commenced updating Glacier National Park articles (the park will be 100 years old this May)...and the FA you and I worked on...if you're interested, check out some of the more recent threads on my talk page or jump in as you please. I plan on sending the main article to Main Page FA for May 11, 2010.--MONGO 17:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Long ago, I promised to put together a summary article on the historic structures of Glacier. A while back I did a consolidated article on the Historical buildings and structures of Zion National Park, which might serve as a framework for a similar article (or articles) for Glacier's buildings. Maybe a daughter article as a summary, then granddaughter articles on fire towers, ranger stations, park administrative/service areas and minor visitor accommodations.  Acroterion  (talk)  21:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Equality
RE:

See WP:Equality (particularly the talk page, and the acknowledgment that there is no equality on Wikipedia.

Also see the comments at Unequality shown in the enforcement of 3rr.

Your question:
 * How come you're allowed to attack other editors and use profanity and stay an admin, while I'm now a disgraced ex-admin who is barely allowed to write articles?

The answer:
 * You simply did not foster the connections on and off wiki that other editors have. As former arbitration member Kelly Martin said about one policy, but which can be said about all of the rules on wikipedia,
 * "It's certainly not consistent with the public principles of the site. But in reality, it's standard practice."
 * There are two tiers of editors, less connected editors who are forced to follow our public policy rules,  and then their are "contributors who consistently and successfully violate policy without sanction"  You seem to fall into the less-connected category.

I can e-mail you the name and severe NPA violations of an admin who told editors to fuck off repeatedly, and after several arbcoms is still an administrator.

As a former administrator, and therefore a veteran editor who knows how wikipedia really works, I am actually surprised you would even ask such a question with such an obvious answer. I suspect you were simply pointing out a perceived injustice with a question founded in a false truism that you yourself did not take seriously? Okip  04:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For the most part, I was just reflecting bitterness about the whole experience, and the fact that some people get to break the rules while others are called on the carpet for it, and harshly sanctioned for it. I still resent the idea that I can't even develop featured content any more, and that my article contributions aren't even worthwhile any more, as was ruled by someone who brought my former admin record into question.  Meanwhile, other people who don't give a flying fuck about profanity or personal attacks are allowed to keep going as-is.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. Like any society, it is all about who you know and what circles you associate in.
 * That said, you could have these sanctions lifted. If User:Rootology can go from being an indefinitely banned editor to an administrator, anything is possible if you are tenacious and smart enough . Okip  12:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)