Template talk:Infobox NRHP

Update URL for Elkman's tool

Need to have the URL for Elkman's fantastic NRHP Query updated - the tool is alive and well at http://www.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php, but the link in the NRHP Template page is pointing at a www2 address (http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php). Thanks! Ba11zooka (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)  Done Valfontis (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

refnum cannot have ref without a number

Thomas Shiels House
NRHP reference No.

This edit by Dudemanfellabra means refnum can no longer have a reference without a number. It produces a strange string with UNIQ...QINU (mw:Strip marker#Strip marker exposure). I don't know anything about NRHP and whether it makes sense to have a reference without a number, but many articles do this. A search on QINU currently produces 71 hits and most of them are from this issue, for example Thomas Shiels House. I placed a shortened version of its infobox here. Can somebody who knows more about NRHP fix this or suggest a fix, either editing the template or the articles? I removed one reference [1] before investigating what was happening. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

NRHP infoboxes should have a refnum, and boxes missing a refnum should be added to the "NRHP infobox needing cleanup" category. The template issue with a reference but no refnum needs to be fixed, and so do the articles. I'll whittle away at the latter. Generic1139 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Not strictly true that the infobox should always have a value in |refnum=. When the infobox is used for an HD contributing property that is not individually listed, then the parameter will be empty. See e.g. St. Mary's Cathedral (Portland, Oregon). — Ipoellet (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, correct, though if the listing is a CP, then the partof_refnum should be present. The logic that adds the cleanup category has been correct in the past. Generic1139 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. I have fixed all "QINU" errors from unrelated causes. There are now 59 search hits on QINU: 4 valid occurrences and 55 on QINU NRHP. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed one of the expressions to restrict the match to the start of the string, '^%s*(%d+)', which means the start of the string followed by any space followed by digits. hopefully this didn't break any existing uses. the other option is to use module:unstrip to try to unstrip the refs before transformation, but in the end it would probably be better to move the entire string replacement into one lua module so you can split the string and operate on each part separately. Frietjes (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Great. The articles now omit the QINU stuff when they are purged. I have copied a list of current search results on QINU NRHP if somebody (not me) wants to do something with them. They should automatically disappear from the search after some time. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I had also saved a list and am working though them. Generic1139 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to @Frietjes: for that edit. I've also modified the code to add the cleanup category Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup to these articles, so look for it to be populated as the job queue catches up. Articles that had a blank refnum parameter already showed up in that category, but now ones that have something weird like just a ref or anything that is not a number (more precisely, that begins with a number) will show up. If something goes crazy, please feel free to revert my edit and let me know, so we can try to figure out what happened. Thanks for pointing this out!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Minor problem with banner lines

Here is an oddity that caused some confusion, leading some editors to do the wrong thing. For the non-HD partof case...

If refnum is blank and nrhp_type is blank, the designation bar doesn't appear.

Setting nrhp_type to something wrong, in most cases, shows "Invalid designation" in the bar.

But, some editors have tried to make the bar appear by setting nrhp_type = National Register of Historic Places. If refnum is blank and nrhp_type = National Register of Historic Places, then the designation bar appears (as U.S. National Register of Historic Places).

If the refnum is then added, the designation banner appears twice, both times as U.S. National Register of Historic Places.

What should happen is setting nrhp_type = National Register of Historic Places should show "Invalid designation" in the bar. It would keep editors from wandering down the wrong path if, when none of the possible reference numbers are provided, the bar said "missing reference number". But showing the Invalid designation in all invalid cases is also fine. Generic1139 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No parameter for official website

The documentation mentions using the {{URL}} template for formatting official-website links, yet there is no |website= or |url= parameter as with most other infoboxes. Should such a paramter be added? Or are official websites supposed to go under another parameter? – voidxor 20:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

voidxor, seems like a reasonable idea to me. would be useful for pages where this infobox isn't embedded, like Fort Scott National Historic Site. Frietjes (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

okay, added an optional parameter, |website=. hopefully this isn't controversial. Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Works great! Thank you! – voidxor 01:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Linking to the United States in every infobox

Would there be any objection to unlinking it per WP:OVERLINK? Since the infobox gives an exact location as well as coordinates, I do not believe the link provides any additional context. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Caption text size

In this edit, Illegitimate Barrister increased the text size in the photo caption from 90% to 100%. I have two things: (a) I'm not sure I agree with this change. The smaller text size served to visually distinguish the caption from the other text in the infobox when we have no graphic indicators (lines, whatnot) to separate them. (b) However, if we do go with the 100% text size, should we not do the same to the map caption? — Ipoellet (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The caption text in other image elements, such as [[file:]] is smaller than article text The caption in the infobox should be the same as any other image caption. This change should be reverted and discussed.Generic1139 (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)