Template talk:NRHP

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

It would be nice if this template's documentation actually said what this template is for. I've read Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#NRHP_refnums and en:WT:NRHP but still don't really see why this template helps. Can someone fill me in? :) Killiondude (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Bots/Requests/ErfgoedBot. --  Docu  at 05:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template causes confusing -- needs new wording.[edit]

The template currently reads:

"This is a photo of a place or building that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the United States...."

Unfortunately, that does not make much sense when the subject is a vessel, locomotive, or aircraft. It is a stretch for bridges and other structures. As an example, a fast look at File:Log Canoe Edmee S and Point Lookout Tower.jpg suggests that the lookout tower or the museum was on the NRHP, not the boat.

The best solution would probably be a parameter that would allow replacing "place or building" with any of

  • vessel
  • locomotive
  • aircraft
  • bridge
  • structure
  • monument

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the text could be changed to "building, structure or object". But you're right, flexibility and specificity would be ideal.

It's also confusing when the property depicted is not listed on the Register individually but is rather a contributing property to a historic district. Since that would probably be fixable with different text, perhaps a separate template could be created? I might be able to do that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

placement[edit]

Are there any guidelines about where to place the template in a file: page? Should it be at the top or inside {{Information}} as part of the description? My preference would be to put it at the top as some templates within information cause difficulty for viewing on mobile devices. --Mu301 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do when a property photographed has been delisted?[edit]

The Wanakena Footbridge in upstate New York was recently delisted from the Register, two years after it was destroyed by river ice. How should we handle this? Take the template off? Or should we consider adding a parameter for "former"? Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't remove the template, since articles continue to exist on the image subjects, and automated tools use it to connect those articles to the category or file that has been tagged. Magic♪piano 14:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would go for the former option and would be nice if that take a date so you would have something like this. Multichill (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The refnum still applies to the property, regardless of its status; removing the refnum would break data links to it and make it appear as if the number no longer is connected to the place. If we add a parameter for "former", or something else of the same sort, that would be fine. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added support for a "former" parameter, which can be seen in use on File:Wanakena_Footbridge.jpg. It changes the text to read "...a place or building that was formerly listed on..." rather than "...is listed...". The input can be anything you'd like, so nothing's stopping you from adding a date if you'd like. I don't know how Wikidata works, but if it just scrapes template parameters, maybe this will work? When I coded it, I imagined just typing former=yes or something, but if it's going to be used as a date, maybe "delisted" is a better parameter title?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP id number format has changed[edit]

Many items using this template are being assigned to Category:National Register of Historic Places without known IDs because the format of the identifier has changed and the template doesn't recognize the new format. The new format I've seen is "SG" followed by 8 digits (for example, on Category:Earl Hall (Columbia University)), but I think other prefix letters are possible. Can we change the template so that it recognizes the new formats? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For the benefit of anyone interested (such as anyone who can help make the change), here is what we're thinking right now:

  • In the past, the NRHP identifiers were 8-digit numbers.
  • At some point, the identifier format was changed. Now there is a prefix on each number that indicates something about the item identified. These prefixes consist of two letters. An example of this type of identifier is SG100002189.
  • Of the prefixes we know about, we think SG, MP, and NL should be allowed by the {{NRHP}} template at this time.
  • The template should be changed to recognize both 8-digit numbers (as it currently does), and identifiers in the new format.

That sums it up. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the code that does the check is {{IsNum|{{{1|x}}} }} - so it just checks to see if the string is solely numbers. The simplest thing to do might just be to remove that check and replace it with one that sees if a parameter has been passed, without checking its formatting. Otherwise someone needs to come up with new code to do the check that returns 1 if it passes.
BTW, are there any objections to this template being removed from categories where the ID is present in {{Wikidata Infobox}}? Hopefully in the longer term it will also become unnecessary in the file pages, but that needs structured data on commons first. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i have a few thoughts on that, but I think that should be a separate discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start a new section below. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: The new SG NRHP doesn't seem to link to the NRHP site registration of the item like the old format does. Will this change, or will we not be able to link to the place in question with the new format? Kalbbes (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the more-recently assigned numbers in the old format don't link there either. It seems that the NPS stopped creating those pages. If there's a new way to get to a page about those properties, I don't know it. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 and Jmabel: Give {{NRHP/sandbox}} a spin and see if that does what you want. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecating this template in category namespace[edit]

Now that we have {{Wikidata Infobox}}, which includes the NRHP number+link, and since all NRHP items should easily meet Wikidata's notability, can this template be deprecated in the Category namespace? Is there any missing functionality that needs adding to the infobox for this property? I can bot-migrate most existing uses of the template to Wikidata/the infobox, the rest will then need manually checking to figure out oddities. In the longer term, hopefully it can also be deprecated completely/deleted, but that ideally needs Commons:Structured data. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making this a separate discussion. When the reference number is added in Wikidata, is any validation done? The template does some minimal validation, and populates Category:National Register of Historic Places without known IDs when it sees an issue. That has helped find missing and invalid reference numbers. If we have to do without it, we can, but it would be good to know if we'll lose the validation we currently have.--Auntof6 (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: There are a whole host of checks that are run on the data on Wikidata - see d:Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P649 and d:Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P649. In particular, there are "format violation"s that are the check on how the ID is formatted (which needs modifying given the above conversation, but Jmabel's asked about that already at d:Property_talk:P649), and "Items without ID" that would help find missing ones. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It sounds like the validation there is at least as good as here. The conversation on that Wikidata page sounds like the prefixes should be left off. At least that's how they're doing it there, and it looks that way on English Wikipedia, too. I wonder if we should do the same. Of course, if we start getting the identifier from Wikidata, we'll see the numbers the way they're stored there. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently running a bot script that imports NRHP values in categories here to the Wikidata entries where they aren't currently present. This will probably mean that the constraint checks will find more exceptions that need cleaning up. I've also run a bot script earlier today that added sitelinks to Commons categories based on ID matching (which means that the infobox will now work in those categories - it will be bot-added soon). Plus, {{Wikidata Infobox}} now adds categories with NRHP reference number (P649) to Category:National Register of Historic Places with known IDs (current count: 15,286). The next step would be to run another bot script that removes this template where the NRHP value matches that on Wikidata... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is this going to work on categories where the NRHP-designated entity isn't the category itself? Much as we put this template on individual photos within a category, we also put it on subcategories like "...interior of NRHP-designated building", "stained-glass windows in NRHP-designated building", etc. - 02:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Or where an entity is both an individual NRHP place and part of a bigger one, such as places that have their own individual designations and are also contributing properties in historic districts. In such cases, there are sometimes two NRHP templates on one file or category. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel and Auntof6: Those are not so easily supported. This is more of a 'one-to-one' connection - so for the cases where there are currently two NRHP templates on one file, ideally there should be two categories, one for each number, each with a corresponding Wikidata entry + infobox. It's similar for interior categories - ideally they should probably have their own wikidata entry, saying that they are part of the main structure, but in that case the NRHP number could probably be duplicated across the Wikidata entries. In both of these cases, my bot would not remove the NRHP template as the values wouldn't match those on Wikidata, so these would be cases to sort out manually. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We've been through this before (years ago), for both this and other countries' comparable templates (the main other ones I've dealt with are Canada & Romanian), and had a pretty strong consensus to the contrary: these are to be used like tags, put on all categories and media to which they are appropriate, not just on the highest-level category to which a given value pertains. - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: This is going beyond my expertise, I'd suggest talking to people on Wikidata about this (e.g., at d:Property_talk:P649) to figure out where the differences are. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: Not sure what there is to discuss. You suggest above that this should be deprecated on categories; I disagree, and the status quo is to allow it on categories. So unless you are making a proposal, I don't really need to go there and say "I propose we leave things as they are." - Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fralambert: I saw that you've been removing a few of the duplicate NRHP values added to Wikidata by Pi bot copying them over from commons categories. Any comments on the discussion above? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: There was about 14 format constraint violations in Wikidata, so most (about 6) was because of they mist a "0" at the begin of the ID, about 4 was because they have a "" at the end of the ID (They are often a contributing property of a historic district, so no ID). It's not so bad, If you look the importance of the import. I was also moving some ID to a new items, but it's more that Wikidata have narrower deffinition that Wikipedia, a battlefield like Honey Springs Battlefield (Q57310496) need a new item, since it different of the battle itself. --Fralambert (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link seems no longer to be working[edit]

I've tried a few of these: the link to nps.gov doesn't seem to bring up anything relevant. Either that site is much sparser than I would imagine, or they changed the scheme of their URLs. - Jmabel ! talk 04:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the template is adding an extra dot to links. Someone please fix this, I can't penetrate the code. — Yerpo Eh? 08:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New SDC Information[edit]

It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this protected page.
Administrators: Please apply <nowiki> or {{Tl}} to the tag after the request is fulfilled.

XRay

There are new additional informations added below the box. The informations are good, but they be inside the box. --XRay 💬 18:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: haters will be haters. Multichill (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: Hate is already a strong word. SDC has difficulty really communicating the benefits. And the additional information under (!) the box is very unfortunate placed. Some use the boxes at the beginning of the information text and the affiliation to the box above it is not necessarily clear. In my opinion, the SDC information clearly belongs in (!) the box. --XRay 💬 06:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:NRHP&oldid=748940074"