A (probably unrelated) problem I am having is that the [[wp:NRHPPROGRESS]]-associated yellow boxes (i.e. that let you see which items in a NRHP county list-article are the NRIS-only ones, etc., for those who have [enabled it in their account, as described at [[wp:NRHPHELP#NRHP stats reading]]) are not coming up for me. And this [is also required for me and others who perhaps have more script stuff installed] to access to the "update" button at wp:NRHPPROGRESS, too.This has long not worked reliably in Chrome, but it also is not working in Microsoft Edge browser. If it was working, I would run the script to update wp:NRHPPROGRESS, which i and a few other editors update occasionally.--[[User:Doncram|Doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 21:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
A (probably unrelated) problem I am having is that the [[wp:NRHPPROGRESS]]-associated yellow boxes (i.e. that let you see which items in a NRHP county list-article are the NRIS-only ones, etc., for those who have [enabled it in their account, as described at [[wp:NRHPHELP#NRHP stats reading]]) are not coming up for me. And this [is also required for me and others who perhaps have more script stuff installed] to access to the "update" button at wp:NRHPPROGRESS, too.This has long not worked reliably in Chrome, but it also is not working in Microsoft Edge browser. If it was working, I would run the script to update wp:NRHPPROGRESS, which i and a few other editors update occasionally.--[[User:Doncram|Doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 21:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
::The yellow boxes and the NRHPPROGRESS script are working for me now in Microsoft Edge browser. Who knows what is different today. I do have to purge the page to get these to work on any given page (which can be done by clicking on a clock gadget (described now at [[wp:NRHPHELP#NRHP stats reading]]; also was discussed at [[wt:NRHPPROGRESS]]). --[[User:Doncram|Doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 21:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
::The yellow boxes and the NRHPPROGRESS script are working for me now in Microsoft Edge browser. Who knows what is different today. I do have to purge the page to get these to work on any given page (which can be done by clicking on a clock gadget (described now at [[wp:NRHPHELP#NRHP stats reading]]; also was discussed at [[wt:NRHPPROGRESS]]). --[[User:Doncram|Doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 21:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
:::[[User:Magicpiano/NRBot/NRHPstats.js|My version of the script]] works somewhat more reliably than Dudeman's. I suspect it has to do with changes in Javascript that have deprecated some of his usages. ''[[User:Magicpiano|<span style="background-color:khaki;color:firebrick;">Magic</span>]]''[[User_talk:Magicpiano|♪piano]] 22:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Some of the above have really good articles already! These are all the hits on "gas station" in NRIS version 2013a. Just three redlinks and one NRIS-only. --Doncram (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a number of gas stations listed under "service station", "filling station", "gasoline station", and other similar terms; you may want to factor those into the list, though it will probably make it a fair bit longer. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 01:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hmm, yes i see now there are more "service station" ones and others besides "gas station" ones in Category:Gas stations on the National Register of Historic Places and subcategories (which don't list redlinks of course). More than I was bargaining for. :( Okay, looking for more redlinks:
That yields 41 or so redlinks, more than i wanted, but still can be articled out. My point was going to be that we're near enough to be able to article out anything.--Doncram (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Number 25 is a coast guard facility, not a petroleum retailer. John from Idegon (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those notes! Okay, Master Service Station is now a redirect and Sinclair Service Station is now a disambiguation page. I really am not enthralled about this topic area, but I guess there should be a list-article capturing this info properly, so watch List of historic filling stations (okay, now started, corresponds to Filling station article) to cover the U.S. and European gas stations covered in Category:Historic filling stations plus to cover the redlinks identified in this exercise. And I'll start articles for the redlinks to finish this up as a topic in NRHP--I'd be happy if others would join in to create some of these. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Farragutful, you're right about potential for duplicate articles to be created. One possibility was just avoided by editor McGhiever creating a redirect to make connection for the Lindholm one in Minnesota. Also before I create one of these I am using "what links here" to go back to the NRHP county list-article, in order to get a photo if any and to get any coordinates which may have been improved. If the NRHP county list-article linked to somewhere else, I would figure that out and create a redirect, too. User:Camerafiend and any others creating articles probably will be doing the same. Another view is that the NRHP list-articles should have been linked to the NRHP listing name, which could be as a redirect, rather than pipelinking to some other name for an article. Anyhow this is getting sorted by creating the articles, and doing any mergers necessary, and we are all completely sorted in a slowly growing number of counties and states. :) Georgia got over 50% recently, by the way. --Doncram (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might also be interested in Massachusetts Avenue Parking Shops which is something like a very early strip mall in the "colonial style" with a gas station included. To tell you the truth (or at least what I remember of it), I was put off that somebody (APK) took a photo of a Phoney Colonee building to represent a NRHP site. When I got there, just after sunset, I discovered that the whole set of shops looks just like that. Due to darkness, I never did get a good pic, but I seem to remember needing to take great pains to avoid getting the gas station in the photo. :-) C'est la vie. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there gray areas; I would like to hear comments about how to organize this stuff. For example there are garage/mechanics shop vs. other automotive related places including tire sales places and auto dealerships. I am thinking that Bristow Tire Shop in Oklahoma is pretty clearly originally a filling station, having had gas pumps. But what about Firestone Tire and Rubber Store in Indiana, which is maybe more tire-oriented and I don't know yet if it had gas pumps, and what about Peck Bros. and Bartle Tire Service Company Building in Oregon, which looks more like a showroom/dealership and appears to have done servicing but probably never had a gas pump? Can places that seem more showroom-like be included into a List of automobile showroom buildings (redlink) or List of motor vehicles-related dealership buildings (redlink) or the like, perhaps allowing for tire dealerships to be included? What about automobile company buildings which may be headquarters or may be manufacturing plants and/or have dealership space? I personally care a bit less about categories than what list-articles make sense, but maybe existing categories can help guide what to do, and some places can be in multiple categories and lists.
Comments/suggestions welcome. This seems hard to organize, maybe I should just focus on creating individual NRHP articles and leave it to categories specialists to make groupings. But list-articles are really helpful. --Doncram (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe these can be done as:
1 If originally had gas pumps, then put into List of historic filling stations and corresponding Gas station or Filling station category.
1a If also was a repair shop, then put into Auto repair shop category
2 If it never had gas pumps, but did auto servicing or repair or body work, include into List of auto dealerships and repair shops, and put into Auto repair shop category. List intro must note that typical service stations which include gas pumps plus also repair bays are covered in List of historic filling stations.
Browse in existing NRHP list-articles in Montana and North Dakota where I recall a few service stations, to add in. Is anyone else aware of service stations to add?
I just happened upon this again. The "Auto House" in the Louis P. and Clara K. Best Residence and Auto House listing is analogous to a carriage house. Its the place the family kept their automobiles with living space for the chauffeur above. It is in no way an auto-related business, and in my opinon, does not belong on this list. Farragutful (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, sure, okay. Noted in above worklist, won't be included in auto dealership list-article or category. I doubt I made any errors in what I positively put into list-articles or categories so far, but there are omissions as I didn't process through all of the candidates above for those purposes. I am pretty much done with it all.
I wonder if covered bridges on the NRHP would be more interesting to complete out? There are about 50 NRHP-listed ones needing articles. --Doncram (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Address restricted" images and statistics
I have made some changes to (my copy of) the scripts that do statistics on NRHP lists and the WP:NRHPPROGRESS page. Some of the changes I believe address buggy behavior with respect to whether or not buttons show up. Dudemanfellabra's NRHPstats.js is used to show statistics on individual lists. I have modified my version of the script to exclude "Address restricted" images from the "number illustrated" count, since (IMHO of course) such images are not actually illustrative.
WP:NRHPPROGRESS is updated by User:Dudemanfellabra/UpdateNRHPProgress.js. I have modified my version of the script to hopefully address the buggy appearance (or not) of the update button. I have also modified it to count the number of "Address restricted" images, although this information only currently appears in the web developer's console. When I ran the script today, there were 881 such images, which is a little over 1% of the total number of images to date. This was lower than I expected.
If I were to actually exclude those images from the count, the change would eventually reflect in the map rendition of the statistics. Magic♪piano 16:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On July 4, I removed all the remaining Address Restricted images from the Utah lists, because consistency makes sense. There has been an apparent consensus to keep the dark blue blobs in eastern Utah caused by the hundreds of Nine Mile Canyon ARs in Carbon and Duchesne counties, so I guess it's best to compare apples to apples. I know there is no consistency nationwide, however, so I look forward to something that treats all states equally. Ntsimp (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The project style guide does not say anything about lists. If it did, it should probably say something about whether or not these images are deemed appropriate in them. Magic♪piano 14:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There has been disagreement here in past discussions in wt:NRHP about our treatment of address restricted places. If you can find an obscure offline source and use that to add location info and to get a photo, for a place that was promised to be kept "address-restricted", does that help or hurt the world? And there is disagreement obvious in competing campaigns to add or remove the address restricted images. Disagreement has to do with what effect we think the wp:NRHPPROGRESS report has on editors' actions: if address-restricted images are deleted or not counted as photos, does that drive editors to go out and discover/publish info that should not be published? Or are editors who add address-restricted images perceived to be overstating their states' photo scores, and undermining good pressure for photographers to find and document the places? Do we care about responsibility for helping vandals, or is that not our job? State and national registers are at fault for not updating the address-restricted status of places that have later become public museums, etc. The main productive way forward would be to coordinate, one state at a time, with SHPO offices about updating AR status info to report now where stuff is public, and honoring their wishes to conceal info where it should be concealed. I would not dare to undertake such a coordinating effort in some states where there has been a lot of revealing already, though.
Personally I would prefer for address-restricted images to be used in list-articles to convey that we don't want to encourage sleuthing to reveal the locations. And a photo of an agricultural field, say, does not convey anything really useful to readers about the archeology there, in contrast to a photo of pottery or whatever from an archeological dig there. For what NRHPPROGRESS shows, whatever lessens pressure / incentive to reveal address restricted info there is best, IMO. Maybe reporting two percentage scores for photos, with and without address-restricted images, would lessen editors' discomfort/obsession with what they think other editors are doing? --Doncram (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care about how other people choose to react to the data. If the metric is "illustrated sites", then AR images pollute the data, because they don't illustrate the site. (Feel free to propose some other metric definition.) Magic♪piano 22:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the "restricted address" image that some use counts as an image, I don't think they should count. Bubba73You talkin' to me? 04:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the situation. The reason that I think that "address restricted" should count is because of the many shipwrecks on the Great Lakes and ocean coasts that are unobtainable IMHO. Only a professional diver with underwater cameras could photograph the site in its present condition. Historic images of the ship before sinking isn't available in many cases. I agree that other "address restricted" sites shouldn't count, as long as their location is publicly available. I have researched online to confirm the location of nearby AR sites before photographing it for the list in cases where the location wasn't secret at all. Royalbroil 06:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does depend on the situation, but generally where the location is not published, we should count the "address restricted" image as we have. Otherwise we are encouraging people to ferret out sensitive sites. Where they have become public, that's different. Jonathunder (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a property's architectural elements are, broadly speaking, not visible from a public way (like a large estate or ranch), and we don't put a "not photographable from a public way" image, does that encourage people to trespass in an attempt to get a picture? Magic♪piano 20:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bite, though the double negatives might have confused me. For a large estate not visible from the road, we don't want to put a "not photographable image" into the NRHP infobox of the article or the county list-article (and we also don't want to put an image of a gateway or driveway that fail to depict any contributing element of the estate), because we DO want to encourage people to get a pic of the estate. There are ways to get a photo there, with or without trespassing (including asking for permission to walk on the property and take photos), and we don't imagine that having a photo, however it was obtained, will lead to any future harm. This is different from taking pictures of an address restricted archeological site, because that goes against my/our expectation what the NRHP nominators/archeologists/owners wanted/expected/were promised. It is pretty sure that we are harming someone, at least by participating in breaking the contract they understood they got from the National Register or whoever else made promises. It is possible that a photo helps archeological site get vandalized in the future. If someone wants to create some other image or text conveying that we want only a non-trespassing photo for the large estate, and indicating that it would be good contribution to get it, I would support using that. Perhaps we could designate those, and use a category to list them, and encourage people to go get those "difficult gets", even possibly asking for further documentation/proof that the photo obtained was with permission. --Doncram (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways to get meaningful images of AR sites as well, that don't compromise the site's integrity or security (for example this image or this one). It's also possible to get permission to photograph artifacts from a restricted site, or secure permission to visit it from suitable authorities. Magic♪piano 01:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question seems to be whether the "Address Restricted.PNG" image counts in progress rankings, or even gets banned outright. I strongly believe it should be kept. I've been researching Minnesota's address-restricted listings for some time now and while I've confirmed the locations of some, others I can only provide educated guesses at (i.e. Original Research), and plenty of others remain completely unguessable to me beyond the township. And I happen to be a librarian, with above-average skills and access to resources. Even non-NRHP resources are usually cagey about the locations of these sites, and the resources themselves are often hard to find: there's a reason my profession refers to government reports as grey literature. If we suddenly mark all of the address-restricted listings as "unillustrated", it's just going to lead to a lot of frustration within this project. A great many of these listings are ungettable without original research (and submersibles, in the case of many shipwrecks). The best vector, as Magicpiano points out, is to track down and photograph artifacts or get permission to upload archaeologists' images. That takes time and requires goodwill from individuals and institutions committed to protecting these sites. They're not likely to accommodate us if the perception is that we blunder around with our cameras and our geotagging exposing sites to the public. The Address Restricted.PNG is a valuable placeholder that can be supplanted if images for a site can be secured through proper channels, just as a picture of a backlit building covered in scaffolding on a dreary day counts in our metrics but can and should be replaced with a better picture when possible. Not counting the Address Restricted.PNG, or banning it outright, just opens what—several thousand wounds? No, I vote for keeping the band-aids on and upgrading where possible without urgency. -McGhiever (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Betcha can't find it. My manual counts give a total of 390 AR properties on the NRHP in Utah, with 17 photographed here so far. Except for the two I took right by publicly-posted interpretive signs, the photos are not geotagged. There's no basis for the "exposing sites" perception, and no one's proposing to change that. Frankly, I fail to see how a photo that would be useful for this project even could help a vandal locate the site. Look at the photo of Redman Village in Nine Mile Canyon. If you're familiar with Nine Mile Canyon but don't know how to find Redman Village, the picture's not going to help you do that. But the bigger issue is what to do about all of those we're realistically not going to photograph. I have gone back and forth on this issue, and at this point I just want a consensus that applies nationwide. I don't care which way it goes, but please, let's decide to count the status of all of these in the same way. Ntsimp (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I totally agree that an non-geotagged photo is no problem. I just worry that after all the hard work of locating a site and photographing it, some of us will be hard-pressed not to add the coordinates of the site or the image. -McGhiever (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point stands: why should restricted sites be "privileged" by getting a placeholder image, when other sites that may be equally difficult to image are not? (I also don't understand what sort of wounds are being opened by this. Editor's sensibilities?) Magic♪piano 23:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, having their addresses restricted is a privileged status... And German Wikipedia has an image for "No picture possible: object not accessible". I would totally support having one in English. As for "wounds", that was perhaps a bit of ill-chosen rhetorical flourish. I just think that if we suddenly decide to knock back our completion metrics, we lovable obsessives (myself included) are going to face a very difficult challenge that may inspire poor responses, like original research, going against the wishes of the NPS, landowners, archaeologists, and cultural heritage organizations, geotagging sites out of misguided helpfulness or completion, and a whole lot of pictures of uninteresting patches of ground (which, I submit, hardly illustrate their sites either). That's a bit of slippery slope logic, I know; my main point is that a lot of these sites are impossible or nearly impossible to illustrate. Disallowing a standard placeholder doesn't inspire better imagery, it just leaves us with an unclimbable hill. -McGhiever (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like the "No picture possible" placeholder as it is more informative than "Address Restricted".
Sometimes pictures are possible. I've gotten two of them and I plan to get another one Friday. They do "address restricted" for archaeological sites but sometimes you can find out where they are later. Bubba73You talkin' to me? 17:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this; it suggests there are no ways to get pictures of the site, which is as false as suggesting that "address restricted" sites cannot be properly imaged. Just because a property's historic elements are not visible from a public way, doesn't mean images can't be located (as opposed to taken) for it, just as with restricted sites. Wikipedia is here for the readers, not the editors; what's wrong with leaving a space blank (in a MOS/policy/guideline way, as opposed to making editors feel better)? Magic♪piano 12:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above article is currently displaying a script error in the infobox: "Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 418: No value was provided for longitude". Would someone please find the coordinates and enter them. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got coordinates from LandmarkHunter (which seems to get them from the NRHP forms), put it in, and it is right on what looks like a farm, so I assume it is correct. Bubba73You talkin' to me? 03:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're fast! Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Google satellite view, the coordinates now in the article point to a building which seems to be "building A" in the hand-drawn map included on page 12 of the NRHP document, based on relationship to road/driveway and pond and other structures. I have some discomfort with this identification because the sketch doesn't show an outline of building like actually there now; there is some possibility the original house is lost and the coordinates one is an all new complicated structure, or that it includes the original house. But this is the best available guesstimate for the exact building, and it is definitely within the farm area. Some other structures in the A through M labelling appear to have been lost entirely. --Doncram (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had to remove two coordinates for houses in the Town of Huntington, New York recently, but despite the fact that I saw the right locations on Google Street View, I can't get the correct coordinates for those sites. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you know where it is then Acme Mapper is good for getting the coordinates. As you move it around, it shows the coordinates of the plus in the center. Just put that on the building and you can read off the coordinates in the lower right. Bubba73You talkin' to me? 22:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyone using software to make sure that if there is a photo in an article, there is also one in the county listing, and vice versa? Today I added a photo in the Orangeburg County, South Carolina listing for Cope Depot, but the article already had photos. I've encountered more cases of this. Bubba73You talkin' to me? 18:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, checking the talk page for {{reqphoto}} - I remove like two dozen from Kansas City NRHP articles that already had photos. Chris857 (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weekly List for August 3 is out plus a New Website
I emailed them about the bad link, they sent a reply that it was fixed - it is now. They also informed me that this week's (Aug 10) list may be out on Monday (Aug 13) and they also said they will move the Weekly List to a new website. No date, other than 'soon'. The new site is https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/weekly-list.htmEinbierbitte (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Thanks for the note that this is a poor situation, but it is basically not right to put a WikiProject NRHP stamp of approval on a redirect going to an article that doesn't cover the NRHP listing. This is a reminder about a number of past cases where multiple redirects were created, when having redlinks is preferred, and the creation of the redirect itself just confuses matters, serves readers poorly, and causes work, including discussion as here. "Redlinks help the Wikipedia grow". The redirect here existed as a redirect for a long time, since 2010, while it should have been showing instead as a redlink in National Register of Historic Places listings in Southwest Portland, Oregon , the corresponding NRHP list-article. As noted by Another Believer, it is not properly covered in the current redirect target. I removed the WikiProject NRHP banner on the Talk page and I put in a SPEEDY deletion request by this edit. If the SPEEDY is not approved then I guess a a wp:MFD request for deletion is appropriate. --Doncram (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect should not be deleted, so I removed the speedy tag. ---Another Believer(Talk) 01:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I converted the redirect into a stub for further expansion. ---Another Believer(Talk) 01:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because you faked me out with your deleting the deletion request and your re-establishing a redirect, instead, as if you were merely edit warring to continue the bad situation. Now, you have created a stub article, I don't think that is better than having a redlink, which properly advertises the fact that we are waiting / hoping for an editor to show up and create a proper article. I think the stub article should be deleted. --Doncram (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I started AFD. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Portland Historic District. Sometime in the last year I tried an AFD to delete about 20 similar stub articles in Idaho, which failed, perhaps because the "substub" articles had been existing for several years. This is different, as it is brand new. In my opinion, we simply don't want new "substub" articles which contain nothing more than is already included in the corresponding NRHP list-article. --Doncram (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "fake you out" or edit war -- I converted a redirect to a stub, plain and simple. The Idaho stubs were kept because the subjects are independently notable, just like this historic district. I can't really follow your reasoning, and I think nominating an article about a notable (which you've admitted) topic for deletion is a waste of editors' time. ---Another Believer(Talk) 16:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Myrick's Mill photo
possible foundationhistorical marker
I've been to the location of Myrick's Mill in Twiggs, County, Georgia twice and not seen the old wooden mill. There is a historical marker (pictured) and also pictured is what I think might be the foundation of the old mill. It is where the old mill should be and I don't see any reason for the three concrete blocks on either side of the spillway, unless it was the foundation. This is where I think the mill should be, but I don't know for sure, and I can't determine the location precisely from the NRHP form or the website. Which photo should be used in the county listing and the article about it? Bubba73You talkin' to me? 04:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination specifically mentions that the stilts on which the mill was built had been placed in concrete footings, which might be what you see. The listing also includes the dam and mill pond, which are in your photo. (I also recently photographed a dam and foundation of a listed but demolished mill. The mill's demolition was not a surprise.) Magic♪piano 14:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit to the article. I think the "possible foundation" photo should be used in county list-article and in article's infobox, because I believe you that you found what there is to photograph there, and it does show the dam and millpond which you say are contributing resources in the listing (hmm, maybe that is implied in the addendum letter with the NRHP document). Like a photo of a gate or gatehouse is okay to be used that way, _if_ it was deemed to be contributing. --Doncram (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I used the photo of the historical marker in the county listing because a thumbnail of the other photo doesn't look like much. Bubba73You talkin' to me? 02:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template:NHLS url
I noticed this morning that {{NHLS url}} apparently works but doesn't work. This:
Hi, Trappist the monk, the URL works for me, using Microsoft Edge browser. While in Chrome browser, the pages appear blank. Hmm, it was coming up, page by page a bit slowly. I could see first several pages being a NHL registration document for something with "Naval" in its name, with author Marilynn Larew and preparation date 7/28/77. But as I kept paging down, then it has gone all blank for me. Seems not to be a general NPS problem, anyhow. There are occasional bad PDF files which could be noted at wp:NRIS info issues or corresponded about, and clearly there are differences in scanning, i.e. NHL documents in general were scanned earlier and are somewhat different in their PDF encodings, so may interact differently with browsers now. Is there a more general problem with NHL files, or is it just this one? --Doncram (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For that specific U.S. Naval Academy file, I can get it using a NRHP url, and see the whole document. I entered the refnum into NRHP infobox generator, i.e. here, and can then click on link to http://focus.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/66000386. This yields in the infobox/draft article the reference using NRHP urls: <ref name="nrhpdoc">{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=66000386}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: U.S. Naval Academy |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate=August 27, 2018}} With {{NRHP url|id=66000386|photos=y|title=accompanying pictures}}</ref>. See PDF document in high quality and accompanying photos in high quality. By contrast, the photos via NHLS url were low quality.
There is probably a general issue here, that we have used NHLS urls in many/most of the 2000+ NHL articles, and NRHP urls which go perhaps to better quality documents are now available and would be preferred if one has to choose. But I also recall cases where the NHLS document is different/older while there is a newer update document at the NRHP url and we want both documents to be referenced. --Doncram (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A (probably unrelated) problem I am having is that the wp:NRHPPROGRESS-associated yellow boxes (i.e. that let you see which items in a NRHP county list-article are the NRIS-only ones, etc., for those who have [enabled it in their account, as described at wp:NRHPHELP#NRHP stats reading) are not coming up for me. And this [is also required for me and others who perhaps have more script stuff installed] to access to the "update" button at wp:NRHPPROGRESS, too.This has long not worked reliably in Chrome, but it also is not working in Microsoft Edge browser. If it was working, I would run the script to update wp:NRHPPROGRESS, which i and a few other editors update occasionally.--Doncram (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The yellow boxes and the NRHPPROGRESS script are working for me now in Microsoft Edge browser. Who knows what is different today. I do have to purge the page to get these to work on any given page (which can be done by clicking on a clock gadget (described now at wp:NRHPHELP#NRHP stats reading; also was discussed at wt:NRHPPROGRESS). --Doncram (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My version of the script works somewhat more reliably than Dudeman's. I suspect it has to do with changes in Javascript that have deprecated some of his usages. Magic♪piano 22:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
_4.jpg)
