Template talk:Infobox nrhp2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Suggestions: local designations

Is it possible to add a parameter for one or two local designations. For example, I would like to add Chicago Landmark at the top and the designation date at the bottom of the infobox at Chicago Board of Trade Building.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, i am not sure if the NRHP2 infobox should accomodate non-NRHP-related designations. I am wondering if a new infobox for local designations (e.g. Chicago, NYC Landmarks commission, etc. ought to be developed. However, perhaps in an article such as TonyTheTiger mentions, having just one historic designations infobox that covers all of the designations, would be best. So, I don't know. What should govern is what is best for wikipedia readers. doncram (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I, too, don't think local landmarks should have a designated bar at the top; I'd have to add one for Chicago, one for NYC - one for every single large city; that, IMO, is not worth it. I could, however, make an option for a blank box - one that could contain any designation. Something like designated_other_name=Chicago Landmark and then allow it to be displayed in the bottom with designated_other_date=January 1, 2000. Does this sound good?
Perhaps you would also need to allow for a linked abbreviation to be used with the date: designated_other_name=CL so that you can identify the date to be displayed as Designated CL January 1, 2000.
Another question is which order to present them in. Perhaps most local to most important national designation is the natural order, as it is usually the chronological order. So show "Chicago Landmark" then "National Register" then "National Historic Landmark", and order the date displays the same way.
I don't think it should be abbreviated; there are too many different ways to abbreviate things, and no one would know what they are. The abbreviations currently in the infobox are standard throughout NPS and NRHP, so someone with knowledge of the organizations would know what they are. For the local designations, I was just gonna display Designated {{{designated_other_name}}}: {{{designated_other_date}}}' in the info section and create a bar at the top containing ([[{{{designated_other_name}}}]]), so it would link. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The abbreviation would be linked, so a reader can click on it to find out what it is. And the abbreviation of, say LACHM, is pretty easy to figure out when the spelled out L.A. Historic-Cultural Monument appears further up in the same infobox. So i think the abbreviation is helpful. Also, the other argument that would have to be passed is a chosen color. Note i chose the california golden color from the Template:Los Angeles and from Template:California in the implementation i did. If we offer an "other" service, then "other-color" is another argument needed. doncram (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so what about this?: No hard-coded bars like the Chicago and LA ones... just one custom bar. designated_other_name would be the designation (e.g. Chicago Landmark, California Landmark, etc.). designated_other_date would be the date of designation. designated_other_abbreviation would be the abbreviation to be displayed in the info section. designated_other_link would be the article to which the abbreviation and title bar linked. If name is given, date would be required and vice versa. Abbreviation and link would be optional. If no abbreviation is given, the info section shows the entire word ("Designated Chicago Landmark" instead of "Designated CL"), and if there is no link provided, I'll make the infobox check to see if an article exists with the same name as designated_other_name. If so, it'll link to the article; if not, it won't. How does that sound? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for giving thought to this. I see that name + abbreviation + link parameters would be equivalent to linked-name + linked-abbreviation parameters in terms of infobox appearance; I imagine that the programming could be done either way, so I think the choice of which parameter set should be based on what would be easiest for inexperienced editors. I think name + abbreviation + link parameters is probably simplest that way.
I see further that you are being sensitive and helpful to offer to build in a check, if link paramter is not provided, to see if there is an article named name-parameter or not, to link to instead. Actually, I think this is probably unnecessary and i mildly prefer for it not to be there, to keep the NRHP2 code simpler and more understandable for future editors, and to put some appropriate burden upon an editor promoting use of a given local designation. I think it is reasonable for us to require, for NRHP infobox to support inclusion of a given local designation on NRHP infoboxes, that there at least be a linkable article about the type of local designation. (I noted by your edit and its summary that the absence of a valid link for Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument seemed to trouble you. That is a valid concern, but only temporarily: i and CBL62 who is working with me already on a list of LAHCMs certainly will create that article. However we are being "strategic" about developing it first before launching it, in order to get DYK exposure for it when we do release it. See User:Doncram/Sandbox4 for our corresponding list article in progress.)
I was further thinking that designated_other_color needs to be an additional parameter. But, I would be concerned about encouraging passing of a hard-coded color value like "#ffc94b" by many calls from many articles, when it would be better practice to have a central name for the color, like "NRHP color", "NHL color", etc. and like "LAHCM color" that i defined. However, perhaps this issue should just be carefully discussed in the documentation to be added. For the "other" designations that would be served this way, I am imagining that there will be relatively few articles of any given "other" local designation that are also NRHPs, so later implementing a color change by revisiting all those hard-codings would not be too onerous.
About directly supporting L.A. Historic-Cultural Monuments, California Historical Landmarks, and Chicago Landmarks or not, I personally want to retain the direct support for those that I programmed into the NRHP2 infobox code. There already exist corresponding list-articles for each of them (list for the first in sandbox draft form as mentioned, list for the second here, a Featured List of the third here). This direct support is already used in articles, such as Manzanar. And a single "Other" designation would not adequately serve the need. Note, Manzanar already uses both LAHCM and CHISL designations. There are multiple other sites that are NRHP-LAHCM-CHISL triples, and further there will probably be additional cases where a NRHP site is listed by LAHCM and/or CHISL and is further designated by a truly local designation, for which the Other designation will be helpful. Please note, an LAHCM designation is hardly "local": Los Angeles, California, and Chicago are vast areas with populations bigger than, say, the state of Mississippi. :) doncram (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
See comments below in the "wrong method" section. I see what you mean about the checklink thing. It's actually very simple to code and understand. The code for the link in the bar at the top would be {{#ifexist {{{designated_other_name}}} | ([[{{{designated_other_name}}}]]) | ({{{designated_other_name}}}) }}. If an article existed with that exact name, it would link; if not, it wouldn't. I support adding it in simply to take the burden off the editor. I agree with what you're saying about the necessity for a linked article, but I have no idea how we'd enforce that.. it's not like we can check every single article to make sure the local designation is linked. We can put some guidelines in the documentation and hope people follow it, but other than that, there's not much preventative measure we can take.
I agree with the color thing. You know you don't have to pass the hex codes, right? You can just type in "red" or "blue" or whatever.. if you want a hex code, you can still type it, but it's not necessary. If an editor wants to have a centralized template for all articles that are, say, "California Landmarks," he can make Template:California Landmark color to include the hex code/color name and just type in designated_other_color = {{California Landmark color}}}.
I still don't support leaving the hard-coded designations in. These designations are easily added using the "other" method, so IMO, there's really no need for hard-coded designations. Everything that the current hard-coded designations display can be displayed by a combination of "other" parameters currently being discussed. The solution to the Manzanar problem is discussed in the "wrong method" section below as adding "other1", "other2", and "other3" parameters instead of a single "other" parameter. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
At a minimum the "Other" option should be offered. I am kinda inclined to say we should try to support any local designations that people want, so have a specific field for Chicago Landmarks (some hundreds, listed in List of Chicago landmarks). Why not? Yes, then we would have to also support NYC Landmarks (some thousands), and City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments (856 in number). Note, we are supporting some tiny categories: International Historic Parks or whatever it is that has exactly 1 member, and several others having fewer than 10 members. It would help editors venturing into the local domains, to use a single infobox to cover their local domain plus NRHP designations.
Why not? They have nothing to do with the NRHP or the NPS. Hell, I could make a bar for Lake, MS, Landmarks or Cuba, AL, Landmarks or any other podunk town in the United Staes....... one for every locality in the country! Maybe even the entire world! See the problem? If a separate bar is included for each designation, there will be way too many requests and way too many total bars. If the "other" option is offered, one can type in whatever designation they want and there won't have to be 561978431 bars included in this infobox.
On another note, yes, we are supporting tiny categories, but that's because they're all the categories in the NPS. Wasn't that the entire reason for this infobox? It wasn't intended to do anything about local landmarks; it was intended to mix NPSs and NRHPs. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, dudeman, TonyTheTiger is a VIP: he is main author of List of Chicago landmarks the only current Featured List directly comparable to what we are trying to do with all the Lists of NHLs and RHPs, none of which are FLs yet, and he is very experienced, so a good "customer" to try to serve, if anyone is. So, I am in favor of accommodating with Chicago-specific fields and seeing how it goes. Besides NYC Landmarks and Los Angeles HCMs and California Historical Landmarks, I don't foresee any other requests for other custom fields coming anytime soon. Why not figure out how easy/hard it is to accommodate such a request, just by doing it? doncram (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Even if he is a "VIP," Chicago Landmark designations have nothing to do with this infobox. I support adding in an "other" option, but adding in a bar for each city is absurd. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, i want the same for Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments, with LAHCM color template now defined as in Template:Los Angeles, and (check out User:Doncram/Sandbox4 which applies it), and designated_lahcm. I may try to edit NRHP2 to do this and to try Chicago Landmark as well. Tony, do you have a color we should use for the background color bar in the header of the NRHP infobox, for the Chicago Landmark bar? Hmm, i guess we should try background:#aaccff as in Template:Chicago. doncram (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, i tried editing the NRHP2 template myself, to handle the LA HCMs and the Chicago Landmarks, but this version doesn't look quite right, so i undid the change. Dudeman, can you fix up that version, and/or see what i did wrong? doncram (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it's easy to do (you've already done it), but it's not logical. If you open the door for one city, every one in America is gonna want to have a bar (exaggeration). See above discussion: This infobox is not for local designations. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, within the NRHP2 infobox i was only thinking about handling NRHPs, NRHPs that also happen to have other designations. For sites that are just local designated, the NRHP2 infobox won't work, as it uses NRHP color and automatically includes a "Register of Historic Places" bar. For local designations either a custom infobox or a generic local infobox are needed, separate from NRHP2, i believe (such as LOCAL1 which i started to handle LAHCMs that are not also NRHPs). doncram (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay a version now implemented that works for Chicago Landmarks, as implemented at Chicago Board of Trade Building, and for L.A. Historic-Cultural Monuments, as implemented at Hollywood Studio Club. doncram (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the looks of the Manzanar infobox. I am totally in favor of not having separate infoboxes for local designations. I don't really care how the bar gets there for a city, by using the "other" feature as Dudemanfellabra is in favor of or by building it in as doncram favors. I can see the problem with every podunk town wanting them, and I can also see the benefits of customization for those in localities with large numbers of locally designated sites. What if they're limited to only localities with over 500 designated sites? Or whatever magic number you want to use....wouldn't that limit the number of localities enough so that it's possible to offer the customization requested to people like Tony the Tiger? Lvklock (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong method

I have been out of the loop since my suggestion, but it makes little sense to add each local landmark. Instead of a chicl field and one for each of the hundreds of local designations there should just be two or three fields that say other1, other2, and other3. Instead of adding yes the entry would be the name of the landmark. I.E., Instead of chicl=yes it should be other1=Chicago Landmark. If you added three other fields I am quite sure almost every building could be accomodated. Thus, all other local landmarks could add their information. I don't mean to throw stones, but the algorhythm chosen was extremely inefficient. Every single local landmark will have to come by and ask for a new parameter. To my knowledge only Chicago Board of Trade Building, Rookery Building and Roanoke Building have added Chicago Landmark. Could someone change the parameter for a general entry so that everyone can use this. When I am in Buffalo or New Orleans I don't want to have to add special code for their local historical societies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This was what I was getting at. I like your idea of the "other1", 2, and 3 parameters. I was only thinking of adding one "other" parameter, but as you say here and user:doncram said above, some articles need more than one local designation. I think designated_other1_name (i.e. state?), designated_other2_name (i.e. county/parish?), and designated_other3_name (i.e. city?) (along with date, abbreviation, link, and possibly color) would be the most efficient method of handling the local designations. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the overstatements that have run through this whole discussion here and on WT:NRHP. TonyTheTiger's current request for Chicago Landmark coverage and my and CBL62's interest in California and Los Angeles landmarks are the only requests for any adaption of NRHP infobox that have ever come up in wp:NRHP history. There is some brief discussion of what makes local designations notable in an NRHP Talk archive, with respect to a Maryland editor, but that editor did not go so far as to begin to create any articles about the type of local designation or to create any list of them. Sure it is conceivable that eventually other requests would come in, but there is no reason yet to suspect that these could not be dealt with on a case by case basis, and perhaps entirely satisfactorily by adding individual coding as done for CHISL, CHICL, and LAHCM.
Note the infobox coding is working as it is now, including for Chicago Landmarks. (You're welcome, Tony!) And I don't see any serious inefficiency problems. For example, there is no basis to complain about slow loading of any single article due to it having an NRHP2 infobox on the page. If there was a page with hundreds of invocations of NRHP2 on the single page (which there is not), then efficiency of the NRHP2 code could be a question.
About New Orleans, google searching eventually gets me to this New Orleans webpage describing its landmark commission. However, there is no wikipedia list of New Orleans landmarks other than those that might be covered in List of National Historic Landmarks in Louisiana and List of Registered Historic Places in Louisiana. It is unclear whether New Orleans makes available any list of its landmarks. Note their webpage that should perhaps list landmarks lists none. There is no current demand for any infobox modifications. Local New Orleans editors participated somewhat when I was developing List of NHLs in New Orleans, but I don't believe that there is any wikipedia editor currently wanting to develop the list of local NOLA landmarks.
About Buffalo, I do find a list of Buffalo landmarks on-line at a private site, but here also I don't believe any wikipedia editor is yet interested in beginning to list them.
So, you may be talking about what might be the most elegant solution to a hypothetical problem, but there is no real inefficiency problem present, in my view, and I would appreciate if people tried to appropriately qualify, and not to overstate, their opinions. Actually in my view the hypothetical problem is not fully understood, because we have no real experience in serving local designation needs. In particular there is no local designation infobox besides the LOCAL1 that i have just started for some LAHCM sites, so we have no understanding of coordination issues between NRHP infobox and a local one, and of issues with local editors and specialized local needs. It might be most efficient, in terms of programming time, to jerry-rig solutions for a couple local designations and see what needs eventually become clear, before investing a lot in the perfect solution. Currently, about the Chicago Landmarks, I believe our current solution meets 100% of any need so-far-stated by Tony (which was just for a color bar at top of infobox, and for a date designated).
I do agree Other1, Other2, Other3 would definitely be helpful to offer, if they could be programmed. The "chicl=yes" type of input is awkward, yes, but that is in line with input of "nhl=yes", "nmon=yes", "nhs=yes" etc., which i understood was set up that way because of programming considerations (which could change if we received some additional programming knowledge). All of those inputs are awkward and it would be nice to figure out how to program NRHP2 differently for all of them. NRHP2 requires this format of input, while the original NRHP infobox does not, I don't really understand why.
I suggest and request leaving the chicl, chisl, lahcm coding as it is now, for now, at least until Other1, Other2, Other3 are programmed. After that is done, i expect it will still not be obvious that chicl, chisl, lahcm direct support should be dropped, but that discussion can and should wait until the NRHP2 programming support for Other1, Other2, Other3 is developed. By all means, Dudeman, go ahead and program for Other1, Other2, Other3 if you like. By the way I created Template:infobox NRHP3 to test code, feel free to re-use that to test code for this, before wrapping back into NRHP2. doncram (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You are way offbase. The fact that lists do not exist is not the point. The thing that matters is whether we could improve articles by making the infobox better. The answer is yes people from anywhere could improve their articles if we corrected the template. Many NRHPs and NHLs have article in cities other than Chicago and LA. Each one could be improved if we cleaned up this infobox to facilitate delivery of the proper information in infobox form.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I grew up in Buffalo and do a lot of Buffalo articles. When I was last in Buffalo, I added a lot of images to Ellicott Square Building and created Lafayette Square, Buffalo. Both could be future local historic sites. It is in no way an overstatement to say that people in cities other than Chicago and LA edit articles on NRHPs and NHLs. If this is a useful template, we should enable them the benefit of adding local designations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The only reason Chicago and LA/CA landmarks are the only ones to ever come up is that we've never offered them. Now that apparently we're offering them, it's almost inevitable that others will want a bar. I get that the code is working now... and will continue to work in the future with a case-by-case basis. I don't have a problem with that fact. I'm just saying there's a better way to make it work without the case-by-case basis.
As Tony said, just because no one has made a list yet doesn't mean there will never be a list. Wikipedia is in no way a complete encyclopedia; if it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The main thing that Tony and I are trying to say is that as time goes on (maybe weeks, maybe months, maybe years), people will want more designations. Yes, it will continue to work if we just add them on one by one, but if we use the "other" parameters, we never have to worry about it again. There isn't an inefficiency problem at present, but we're saying that over the long-term, there will be. If we tackle the problem now, we avoid getting into a mess and a mass reprogramming later.
Your statement about meeting 100% of the need is precisely what we're trying to say. Yes, hard-coding for the 3 present designations is working, and now we know what we need. Since we know the basic need, we can modify the programming to give the parameters that are needed for any designation - not just the 3 right now.
About the awkward input: Yes all the nrhp2 and nps inputs are different than the old nrhp. The main reason for incorporating the "designation=yes" format was to allow multiple designations. The way I see it is that all the nrhp and nps designations' bars/styles are coded into the box, so you can just be like "Ok, infobox, I want this style that you already know." The purpose of using the "other" designations is to allow an editor to create his/her own style and make the infobox display it. We could change all the "designation=yes" inputs to require all the "name", "date", "color", "abbreviation", and "link" parameters, but since the designations are central to the theme of the infobox, simply saying "nhl=yes" bypasses all this.
What I'm trying to say is that there is a set number of nrhp and nps designations that will more likely than not remain constant; therefore, we know everything about them we need and can hard-code them and forget about them. The number of local designations can grow and grow as the number of cities grow and grow. Since the number of cities/local designations is not constant, we don't know everything we need to know about each one and can't hard-code them because the job will never be finished. If we allow the editor to type in any designation now, the job is finished. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Dudeman. I'll comment on another accomodation or two to make, that i think will help with coordinating to future local designation infoboxes, below.
More to TonyTheTiger: the title of this section uses "Wrong" and you call me offbase. Per merriam-webster definition of offbase that term also means wrong. I don't really want to get into an argument, but I think it is on the edge of being rude to use those terms. I see nothing "wrong" about what I have said, which was mainly we don't need to get into a panic about ruling out accomodating local designations, there is not a huge urgency of requests and there is not any huge inefficiency that is a problem in any imminent way. And, like i said, I found the tone of the previous discussion here and at WT:NRHP to be a bit distasteful and overstated: that is an expression of my feeling and you cannot seriously be saying i am wrong to have that feeling, it is my feeling. Again, you're welcome Tony for our having accomodated your request. doncram (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Other" designations available at Template:Infobox nrhp3 for now

I just coded the "other1", "other2", and "other3" designations at Template:Infobox nrhp3. I didn't want to copy the code over to this as there are currently several articles that use the chicl, chisl, and lahcm parameters (most appear to be at User:Doncram/Sandbox4). IMO, we should change all the articles that use the chicl, chisl, and lahcm format over to infobox nrhp3 format before we copy the code over to nrhp2. When all the boxes include the inputs necessary for nrhp3, we can simply change all the 3's to 2's using the "What links here" section of nrhp3, and the transfer will be complete. Chicago Board of Trade Building, Manzanar, and Hollywood Studio Club already implement nrhp3, so if you want an example, go to one of them. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for developing these. I am thinking that another pair of parameters may be needed to coordinate with future local infoboxes. For NRHPs, we include NRHP referernce number. For LAHCM's the monument number is also important, and i included it (labelled LAHCM site#) in the LOCAL1 infobox as applied at Faith Bible Church, Northridge, California. As the LAHCM list and set of articles grows, I will probably want to have their infoboxes include the number, which is a salient part of the identification of the site, more salient than is the NRHP refnum for NRHP sites. Also the California Historic Landmark number, as in "No. 312 John Muir Home" is rather highly emphasized on plaques and in the main source, California Historic Landmarks, a 346 page book on them put out by the California State Parks' Office of Historic Preservation.
So, for each of the Other1, Other2, Other3 designations, I am thinking that something like Other1_number_name and Other1_number arguments ought to be allowed.
I expect this would apply also for Chicago Landmarks, although I don't know for sure if there is a prominent site / plaque numbering system for them too. Anyhow, for any local designation that does have a numbered list, it will be natural for a wikipedian who is addressing them to include the numbers in the LOCAL1 or similar infobox for all the sites that are not also NRHPs, and then to want the numbers to appear also in the NRHP infoboxes for the few sites that are also NRHPs. doncram (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I just added "designated_other1_number", "designated_other2_number", and "designated_other3_number" to nrhp3. The box displays {{{designated_othern_abbr}}} and a number sign (CL #, LAHCM #). An example can be found on Manzanar. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Seeing the numbers used for Manzanar and for Campo de Cahuenga (just added), it looks to me like combining the date and number info might possibly be even better. So the arguments would be the same, but perhaps it would show: "Designated LAHCM #29: 04 Apr 1964". The programming would have to allow for either the date argument to be missing or for the number argument to be missing. It happens, by the way, that California Historical Monument dates may not generally be available, they are not given in the state's book about them and it is an unusual reference that supports the 1972 date for CHISL for Manzanar. What do you think? doncram (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe it would be simpler and better to just show the number as part of the main color bar, so "L.A. Cultural-Historic Monument #131" would show up top, for Dunbar Hotel, instead of putting it with the date or in a separate row below. If i or another wikipedia editor prefers that, we can just skip use of the number field, and include it in the existing name field. Let me try that for a few.... doncram (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be down in the info section with the NRHP refnum; it appears to me as if that's where all the numbers would go. If you were reading through the info section, you'd get to NRHP Reference# (btw, why is there no space? Should there be one?) and then you might wonder, "Well what's the CL #?... or the LAHCM #?"... If those numbers were right below, you wouldn't have to look very far.
If the numbers are placed with the "Designated ____:" line, to me it seems to just throw the number out there. Above, the box stated that the site was a CL but never mentions its number (exactly how the box handles NRHP designation). If in the designated line we include the number, it's just thrown in there out of nowhere IMO (like it's a given) and easier to leave unreferenced. The number is definitely not a given and needs to be referenced just as the NRHP # is. Separating the two lines, IMO, puts more significance on the number and allows for easier and more uniform referencing. If the number was included in the "designated" line, the ref tag would be in the bolded heading, not the normal text, unlike all the other refs in the infobox.
Also, putting them local numbers in the header would take away uniformity with all the other NRHP articles' infoboxes. If we include local designation numbers in the NRHPs with local designations, should we not include the NRHP # in all NRHP infoboxes? I don't think so. This, above all, is an NRHP infobox - not a local designation box. Maybe you could implement these changes in LOCAL1? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think a difference is that no one knows or uses the NRHP reference numbers. The goal should be to coordinate with / serve other designations too. Note, for example, the National Park Service's nation-wide list of National Historic Landmarks in PDF, cited in all the list-articles on NHLs, does not. It is an 8-digit bureaucratic code. For local designations like LAHCM, however, the landmarks are numbered from #1 on up, and the number is meaningful and prominently used. The PDF document listing LAHCMs presents them in number order. And for another example of number use, there is a a blogger creating blog articles from No. 1 up to No. 149 or so, so far, of the 856 LAHCM sites. So, leave the NRHP refnum as it is. But part of the title of any LAHCM or CHISL seems to be the Monument number. As for consistency concerns, the NRHP infobox should aim to provide consistency with local designation infoboxes where possible. I will consult with Los Angeles people about designing the LOCAL1 infobox serving up the LAHCMs, but think i will probably soon include numbers in the LAHCM title color bar.
An example now is San Pedro Municipal Ferry Building which puts LAHCM #146 in the LAHCM title color bar. That looks good to me. doncram (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean now. I thought you were talking about putting the number in the bar that displays the name ("San Pedro Municipal Ferry Building" in the above example). I agree with you now. I'll add that in a second. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The numbers are now displayed in the title bar. This is done automatically by inputting a number to designated_othern_number; the number is displayed both in the info section and in the title section. If no number is inputted, the title bar still works, and no functionality is altered. It took me a few tries to get the linking, parentheses, and spacing right, but I believe it's all working perfectly now. I changed San Pedro Municipal Ferry Building to reflect the edits, and Manzanar is kind of interesting. Thanks for the suggestion! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the NRHP2 update. All switched over to call NRHP2 now, no infobox links to NRHP3 any more. doncram (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parentheses around NHL, LAHCM, etc designations

I am wondering why there are parentheses around the NHL, NMON, LAHCM, CHISL, etc. designations in the title color bars for each of them. There are no parentheses around "U.S. National Register of Historic Places", which looks better to me. I am thinking the parentheses should be dropped.

I don't think they should. The reason NRHP doesn't have parentheses around it is because that's the top designation. All the others have parentheses because they're sub-designations. I see that the local designation has nothing to do with the NRHP, but in some ways, I also view it as a sub-designation. NRHP is the most important designation, so it isn't parenthesized. The parentheses are like saying "and the site is also a ______".... IMO. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions: coordinates

Also, can you have the coordinates appear in the upper right of the article just like {{infobox nrhp}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
About the coordinates thing: Sure I can add it in, but I personally don't think it's necessary. The coordinates are already listed in the infobox, and some articles display the coordinates in other locations as well; there are more than enough links to the coordinate page. If, though, a consensus is reached that the coordinates should be displayed at the top of the page, I'll gladly add it in. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand that request. Why is it desired? I do know that there are many articles where there are double coordinates, one from the NRHP infobox and one from elsewhere in the article, where they both display in overlapping fashion at the top right of the article, which is a problem. doncram (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not in favor of adding the coordinates at the top. I have spent considerable time on the NY NHL list trying to fix articles with overlapped coordinates at the top. I would be in favor of having the info in the infobox (including coordinates) more apparent when you first reach a page....I've read something somewhere about a picture, info, map order. IMO, that would be the best af all worlds, offering picture AND map, not either/or as well as having the infobox serve the purpose of having the info included available at first glance. Lvklock (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Locmapin control over displaying a map or not

Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas#Jefferson Memorial, the locmapin parameter controls whether a map is shown or not, given that coordinates are included in an article. A blank for locmapin suppresses the map display. This is okay by me. It is essential, in my view, that an editor can choose to suppress the map display, and this does it. I am including this link here, to document the discussion. Discussion about NRHP2 has developed in several Talk pages. I haven't checked if the basic documentation of NRHP2 covers this feature adequately, yet. doncram (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing order from Image-Map-Info to Image-Info-Map

Per Dudeman's comments i think at WT:NRHP, it is not easy to offer multiple orders. But it should be easy to implement the alternative order instead. Per discussion at WT:NRHP and elsewhere, including some I had just within last 24 hours with Ivoshandor on some article, it seems 100% consensus is that Image-Info-Map order is preferred. Could that be implemented? doncram (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So 3 people (you, IvoShanddor, and Lvklock) now equals 100% consensus? I can implement it, but not at the current time. I'm not really able to spend a long time online right now because I'm not at home. No clue when I'll return, but when I do, I'll try to edit the code. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I added a comment about this with the coordinates comment in Suggestion section above before I read this (I may have been simultaneously typing). Anyway, no problem with timeframe. I really appreciate all the effort you've put into this. As far as consensus, I often find it a frustrating thing here in Wikiworld....if not enough people care enough to comment, then the consensus is often based on only a few, as here. I don't know enough about the mechanics of Wikipedia to know if there's someplace where we should present these things to get more people to comment. Thanks again for all your effort on this. Lvklock (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well, i don't mean to overstate a consensus, but i do think that others have expressed the same preference, too, and i don't recall any statements of preference for the Image-Map-Info order from any reviewers of any NRHP2 articles. I think i had the 100% term at the tip of my tongue because in my own mind i was thinking that in 100% of the articles using NRHP2 that i have reviewed, i thot Image-Info-Map would be a better order. Anyhow, if you disagree about it being consensus, or if your preference is otherwsie, please do say so.
By the way, i am tinkering also with a LOCAL1 template, implemented for example in Faith Bible Church, Northridge, California for sites that are L.A. Historic-Cultural Monuments but not also NRHPs. doncram (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)