Template talk:Infobox NRHP/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Proposal for map functionality

When selecting the different map zoom levels (e.g. Federal Hall's infobox), the map caption remains the same for each. I propose adding the ability to have a caption for each map, so that when one selects a different map, the caption changes. For example, with the New York City map selected, the caption could read "location in New York City" but with the New York State map selected, the caption could read "location in New York," etc. Ergo Sum 01:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There has been some previous discussion at wt:NRHP about the multiple levels for maps. See discussions archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 64#Outsized maps and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 64#Infobox maps. It has been mentioned that captioning is a problem, as caption relevant for one level might not apply at another. Your suggestion sounds reasonable. But I am not clear on if the multiple level map coding is here, though: was there any change in this template (infobox_nrhp) was it in code elsewhere that this infobox relies upon? Perhaps the request should go elsewhere. User:Frietjes seemed to be informed about it, perhaps they could please possibly comment? --doncram 02:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Thanks for the response. I didn't realize variable captions had been previously discussed. As for the actual coding to support it, I am certainly not an expert on that, so others weighing in would be useful. Ergo Sum 23:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Doncram and Ergo Sum:, that would need to be implemented at the level of Module:Location map, so I would suggest asking there or asking Jackmcbarn directly. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

That's doable and not hard, but I'm fairly busy right now. I'll try to add it to Module:Location map within the next few weeks. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn and Frietjes: As an aside, I think it might also be preferable to have the map caption located above the map options, directly below the map, rather than where it currently is placed. Ergo Sum

Categories

Every so often a category populated by this template shows up in Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories. These categories are a complete pain when redirected - the bot can't adjust the articles and many editors have no idea how to change the templates. Currently Category:Historic districts in USA Virginia Northern is stuck in the system with 31 entries not moved over - can someone with the knowledge to deal with this template and the articles get this one sorted out please? Timrollpickering (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Do we actually want the articles in Category:Historic districts in Northern Virginia when all those I examined are already in both Category:Historic districts in Virginia and a county category like Category:Historic districts in Fauquier County, Virginia? The articles could say |nocat=true to not add any category automatically. The automation is based on the name of the location map given in locmapin. They say USA Virginia Northern to use File:USA Virginia Northern location map.svg. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

See the discussion called "Problem" above. The template documentation explains how to deal with this less than optimal situation. Set |nocat=yes and add the category manually. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example fix. I applied it to a half-dozen of the articles in that category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the redirect category is now empty. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

website...

I am used to other Inboxes (such as Infobox person) where the website is put at the bottom of the infobox. Is there a particular reason why the website parameter for this Infobox ends up in the middle of the box, above NHRP Reference # & Significant dates? I think if readers are utilizing the infobox as a summary/overview tool, then making the subject-site's website more visually prominent makes sense. Also, if Wikipedia's general readership is used to other Infoboxes having the website as the last line it might be worthwhile to consider adjusting this one to more closely resemble its infobox brethren. Shearonink (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The reason I am asking about this is I was looking at James A. Garfield National Historic Site and thought at first that the website was missing from the article's Infobox. Now if a reasonably-experienced editor such as myself can make this mistake, I think Wikipedia's general readership might as well... Shearonink (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The website parameter should display the url like in [1]. This is easier to spot and more informational. The documentation says to do it and it's standard for infoboxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but why - is there a good reason I don't understand - why does the website in this particular Infobox not display at the bottom like most other infoboxes - for instance, like the Infobox person at Leonardo DiCaprio and the Infobox company at IBM. I think most of our general readership will expect the website to be at the bottom of an Infobox... Shearonink (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Additional proposal

Firstly, one of the functionalities of Template:Infobox lighthouse is that you can change the pushpin image, e.g. to a lighthouse, instead of a dot. I think this would be a nifty and useful functionality for Infobox NRHP.
Secondly, like a National Historic Landmark, U.S. Historic District, or U.S. National Monument, one of the Department of the Interior's designations is Outstanding Natural Area. There should be some designated box on the top for that with its own color and wikilink, rather than using the "other_designation" parameter. Anyone agree? Ergo Sum 03:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm prompted to comment here by the edit to this discussion item that just added {{edit template-protected}}, which properly is asking for more response. I don't want to just throw up obstacles, but...

About (1) allowing the pushpin image to be changed, could you give some support for why this should be done? Note, if a lighthouse is listed on the National Register, its article usually uses {{Infobox lighthouse}}, with the National Register information included in an embedded {{Infobox NRHP}}. The map and its pushpin are controlled by Infobox lighthouse. So there is no need for Infobox NRHP to allow for lighthouse pushpins. Offhand, I could vaguely imagine that a pushpin image of a ship might enhance a National Register-listed ship, but a) ships vary from sailing ships to battleships and I don't know one pushpin image would serve many well, and b) ship articles usually have a Ship infobox with an embedded NRHP infobox, and wouldn't the map be controlled by the ship infobox? I am not sure of any example articles where a different pushpin image would help. --doncram 20:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

About (2) addding an Outstanding Natural Area designation parameter, I am not familiar with the designation, but it seems more suitable for the designation to be added to {{Infobox protected area}} instead. There are only 7 example articles linked from Outstanding Natural Area article, and of those 5 use Infobox protected area, one uses Infobox lighthouse (with an embedded Infobox NRHP), and one uses {{Infobox forest}}. Is there any reason to use Infobox NRHP rather than Infobox protected area as the primary infobox, for any of these? If there are just a few rare cases where using Infobox NRHP makes sense, then the "Other_designation" parameter works fine. Again I don't want to invent hurdles just for the sake of making things difficult, but why should any programming attention should be devoted to this request, if there is no list of examples where Other_designation is already used, or should be used, for Outstanding Natural Area designation? I wouldn't be the one programming it, though. --doncram 20:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"Owner" parameter

I propose that "Owner" be added as a parameter for this template, in the case of properties for which the owner is someone with a Wikipedia article of his/her own. pbp 16:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Display breakdown

I've tried to upgrade the infobox on the article Eisenhower Birthplace State Historic Site to represent the site's new NRHP designation. The color bar background behind the Former Texas State Park field does not properly display a gray #DDD but instead inherits the brown field from the previously listed designation. I've attempted to use the parameter "delisted_othern_date" to no avail. I would like to raise that designation in the hierarchy, but it messes with the other lower designations when I do so. Either there is a glitch in the template, the documentation doesn't describe how to display this properly, or I'm just missing something. Please help. Fortguy (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear explanation and links. I found and fixed a typo, which seems to have fixed this problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

map problem with coords only

Zaleski Methodist Church Mound (lat/long)

Zaleski Methodist Church Mound (coord)
Coordinates	39°17′2.1″N 82°23′44.4″W

Zaleski Methodist Church Mound (both lat/long and coord)
Coordinates	39°17′2.1″N 82°23′44.4″W

The map seems not to work for coordinates: compare these two based on the one at Zaleski Mound Group. It throws an error if you have both {{coord}} and separate fields enabled, but only works with the latter.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

pinging Jc86035 and Jonesey95.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and the clear explanation. I have worked around this problem in the infobox code. Three test cases are provided to the right. Once we get {{coord}} into all of the articles, we will remove all of the deprecated lat/long parameters. This problem will probably crop up again where diligent editors have used both sets of parameters. Just ping us to let us know. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Default image width vs map width

Where used in the NRHP infobox, the image is scaled to a width of 250px while the inline map uses a width of 240px. For instance Bradenton Carnegie Library or Buckingham Fountain. It might happen elsewhere, but it's noticeable here because the map directly follows the image. Could these please be aligned? Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The documentation defined a default image size, but the template was not doing so. I have defined a default size that makes the images match in those two articles (on my screen), but given that there are thousands of articles using this template, there will no doubt be some unintended consequences. Post here when you find them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done a check (with purge) of a few pages that use the template -- and they match where both used. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Might it have been better to change the values for |upright= (see WP:UPRIGHT) to match? Apparently it's discouraged to use pixels as a value because then images can't scale with user preferences. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps. My goal was to change as little as possible, given the widespread use of this template. Given that both upright and size were already set, I don't know what to make of the code before I took a swing at it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

National Natural Landmark

Please add National Natural Landmark as a nrhp_type.Mattise135 (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Mattise135, I think that is not going to happen because National Natural Landmarks are not part of the National Register of Historic Places system. National Historic Landmarks are all NRHP-listed and have NRHP reference numbers and listing dates and so on, but National Natural Landmarks is something different. I think there should be a proper way to handle National Natural Landmarks already, though, in template:Infobox protected area. If there is not a standard way to handle them there, it certainly should be discussed at Template talk:Infobox protected area and/or wt:PAREAS. Hope this helps. --doncram 17:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

map_label = PAGENAME

This edit by Cs California added "map_label = {{PAGENAME}}" to an NRHP infobox, putting label for the place out on its map. Should this be done regularly, perhaps? I am not sure, just want to remember it here. --doncram 17:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think adding the label is horrible, but it's also really not necessary. The intent of the locator map in the infobox is clear and there's only one placemark on the map - the title on the infobox is all the label that's needed. — Ipoellet (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiple partofs

I have a building which is itself listed on the NRHP, and which is a contributing building to two Historic Districts. Is there a way to do two "partof" and "partof_refnum"? I tired putting a "2" after the second, but that didn't generate the proper infobox. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what building Tim1965 is referring to , but I can think of one case where we already have an article for a property contributing in two HDs, and I can think of multiple cases where HDs overlap. — Ipoellet (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Call this a kludge, but it works: I just tested an edit at the Snake Alley article (and reverted it) and found you can just manually add a second district and a refnum, as in:

| partof = Snake Alley Historic District, District 99999999
| partof_refnum = 74000783, [https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/99999999 99999999]

where "District 99999999" is a supposed second district. Note here i manually add an external link for the second refnum, because the infobox NRHP code creates a link (74000783) for just the first refnum. --doncram 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Good thinking. I've implemented a modified version of your suggestion at Snake Alley, where |partof= includes the name of the first-listed HD, a manual link to the first HD refnum, then the name of the second HD. Then |partof_refnum= includes only the refnum of the second-listed HD.

| partof = [[Snake Alley Historic District]] ([https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/75000683 #75000683]),<br />[[Heritage Hill Historic District (Burlington, Iowa)|Heritage Hill Historic District]]
| partof_refnum = 82000406

However, this solution is still an inelegant workaround, and could benefit from some smart coding in the template. — Ipoellet (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Terrific!! I'm all for inelegance. :) - Tim1965 (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)`
• @Tim1965, Doncram, and Ipoellet: if you want more integrated support for a second partof, we can implement this change. if you think it's not worth it and the hack is the way to go, I will leave it alone. Frietjes (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I am clueless when it comes to coding, so I refrain from putting in my two cents. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

(Sorry for the delayed response - I've been busy IRL with traveling and a funeral.) I am not qualified to evaluate the code itself, but if you've written support for a second partof, then I would say yes go ahead and implement. And thank you. — Ipoellet (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tim1965, Doncram, and Ipoellet: now implemented. you can use |partof=, |partof_refnum=, |partof2=, and |partof2_refnum=. Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup

For the life of me, I can't figure out what is wrong with the infobox at Cotulla Ranch that keeps placing it in the maintenance category. Fortguy (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Fortguy, fixed. Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Map marker

How about a way to specify which marker is desired? - Denimadept (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

NRHP Ref # Links

According to the NPS, all the records will eventually be transferred to the National Archives. Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia are already in the archives. Thus reference links for places in these states and more are broken or lead to unavailable records. --Qsheets (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Standardization of some fields for template boxes

So I noticed several template boxes have fields that perform the same function but under different names. I propose we change these to a common name.

• Map display
  • Template:Infobox NRHP field:locmapin
  • Template:Infobox building field:map_type
  • Template:Infobox museum field:map_type
  • Template:Infobox park field:map
  • Template:Infobox protected area field:map
  • Template:Infobox venue field:pushpin_map
  • Template:Infobox religious building field: map_type
  • Template:Infobox airport field:pushpin_map
• Labels on map
  • Template:Infobox NRHP field: map_label
  • Template:Infobox building field:pushpin_label
  • Template:Infobox museum Not present
  • Template:Infobox park field:map_label
  • Template:Infobox protected area Not present
  • Template:Infobox venue ?
  • Template:Infobox airport field:pushpin_label

There are lots more but it is they are all similar--Cs california (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Maps in infoboxes for an attempt at this standardization. The proposed scope may have been too big for one person to take on, but it would be valuable. Also see Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes for a similar project that was extremely successful. It took a group of four or five dedicated editors and a bot operator about a year to do that project. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Issue with Autocategorization

I'm not familiar with the details of this template, but it is adding a non-existent category to certain pages. See Old North Building. Upon adding a map to the infobox (Infobox NRHP is embedded in {{Infobox building}}), a red-link category was added. Can someone more familiar with this template take a look and possibly resolve the issue? Ergo Sum 15:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Ergo Sum, I fixed it by moving the map up, but you can also fix it by adding |nocat=y to the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Thanks for you attention and resolving the issue on that article. However, the underlying problem remains for this template. Your edit just utilized the map functionality of {{Infobox building}}, instead of using Infobox NRHP's map functionality. Someone should resolve the remaining problem. Ergo Sum 01:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Ergo Sum, it has already been resolved, you use |nocat=y in the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What is the story with the "architect OR builder" parameter?

I am seeing hundreds of pages with an "architect OR builder" parameter in Category:Pages using infobox NRHP with unknown parameters, but I do not see it documented, and I do not see it discussed explicitly in the talk page archives. I do see a discussion about architects, but not about this unusual parameter.

The parameter is not in the template examples, but it is being used in new articles, such as Arch Hurley Conservancy District Office Building, created in 2017.

Should it be displayed on pages? Should it be removed? What is the story? All I know is that the world of historic buildings and sites is arcane, so I thought I would ask before taking any action. Thanks – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Jonesey95, The story is that there is |architect= and |builder=, and the infobox generator tool pulls basic data about a listing from the NPS database and from that summary can't tell which to use. So there was some discussion which I think I read once that resulted in putting the name into the unsupported |architect or builder= as a kind of "place holder". An editor has to go through the sources and try to figure out if the the name is the architect or the builder and make the correction. MB 02:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

map label width

Template:Location map supports |label_width= to prevent line-wrapping of a long label when that would not be desirable. I would like that capability here. Frietjes? MB 02:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I have added it, but I have not tested it (yikes!). Please try it and post here if it works or does not work. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

tried it in one article and it worked fine. but shouldn't it be called map_label_width here to be consistent with the other map related params such as map_caption? MB 20:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I just followed the naming of the other "label_" variables. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right, they do. I was looking at all the other map parameters that start with map_. Yet another inconsistency in template parameters. MB 23:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate conflict

I'm seeing a conflict with {{Coord}} on at least three different pages where {{Infobox NRHP}} is embedded in {{Infobox Bridge}}. See Cornish–Windsor Covered Bridge, Mount Orne Covered Bridge, and Columbia Bridge (Connecticut River). In all cases, the coord displayed at title location is corrupted. I'm not seeing multiple uses of {{Coord}}, so it's not an error in all three articles. I'm not a serious template editor, so I'm just bringing the issue to y'all here. Please fix it. - Denimadept (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

{{Infobox bridge}} gets coordinates from Wikidata if they are available, so providing a second set of coordinates via the NHRP infobox is causing duplicate coordinates. Remove the second set like this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

refnum issue

If anyone watching here does not also watch the NRHP project talk page, please see WT:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Infobox error. Looking for comment. MB 04:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Request Civil Engineer instead of Engineer

For historic properties, this is largely a case of a civil engineer, not just an engineer. Can we request the template to reflect this? Risk Engineer (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There is already |customarchitect= and |customarchitect_title= that can be used for this.MB 20:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request. Add a {short description}

Insert the following line as the first line of the template:

<includeonly>{{short description|United States national historic site|noreplace}}</includeonly>

Or simply copy this sandbox version into the template. It should diff as adding that one line.

If/when that edit is made, the docs should have {{Auto short description}} added as the second line.

Trying to Preview_page_with_this_template cannot test short description functionality. Instead I tested by actually using the sandbox version in an article.[2] After a page-purge the short description worked as expected. Alsee (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, Alsee Some more procautions to avoid false positives should have been made before doing this. It currently generates bad short descriptions and interfere with infobox schools short descriptions for a few hundred articles using it as an embeded template. I've made a change in the sandbox to disable it when embeded. --Trialpears (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Trialpears has a valid point. The short description should be disabled on embedded templates. Here is the sandbox diff created by Trialpears. I didn't test it, but on casual inspection it looks about right. Alsee (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I did some testing in my sandbox and it seems to be working fine. Sadly we can't test short descriptions properly in the testcases since a page can only have one. Since we've had two editors endorse this request (Alsee and Steven (Editor) who enabled the edit request) I think there is consensus for this change. --Trialpears (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I've not tested it either but yep I support. It's a good job I mentioned the school issue and thanks Trialpears for taking the initiative. The only thing left is there could be more templates Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites

I've been editing a few Washington, D.C. NHRP articles, and I was wondering if a local designation can be added to the infobox for the District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites. Thanks so much! Rockhead126 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rockhead126: Just saw this now; I already left a note at your talk page. Just created District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites and added support for it on the template. Ergo Sum 18:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: I wonder if we can add support for autocategorization for state or local-level non-district historic sites that do not have more appropriate subcategories. E.g. autocategorize Category:District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites. Ergo Sum 18:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Request 4 additional parameter | image_map = Map

I would like to add a map to The_Octagon_(Roosevelt_Island) similar to the Roosevelt Island's Infobox. Currently the red-dot blots out the entire island+ on the New_York_City.svg it's not accurate enough for any large city with lots of Historic Places 🕌

NOTE: The exact pin&coordinates TBD --GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴 19:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, done. Note that it's a little bit of a workaround; still would be nice to have this ability with image_map. ɱ (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 April 2020

Several lines have the text # to represent "number" which is a violation of MOS:HASH. So I ask to replace

Extended content

NRHP&nbsp;reference&nbsp;# replace with NRHP&nbsp;reference&nbsp;{{abbr|No.|number}} {{#if:{{{designated_other1_number|}}}|&nbsp;<nowiki>#</nowiki>{{{designated_other1_number}}}}}}} replace with {{#if:{{{designated_other1_number|}}}|&nbsp;{{abbr|No.|number}}{{{designated_other1_number}}}}}}} {{#if:{{{designated_other2_number|}}}|&nbsp;<nowiki>#</nowiki>{{{designated_other2_number}}}}}}} replace with {{#if:{{{designated_other2_number|}}}|&nbsp;{{abbr|No.|number}}{{{designated_other2_number}}}}}}} {{#if:{{{designated_other3_number|}}}|&nbsp;<nowiki>#</nowiki>{{{designated_other3_number}}}}}}} replace with {{#if:{{{designated_other3_number|}}}|&nbsp;{{abbr|No.|number}}{{{designated_other3_number}}}}}}} {{#if:{{#switch:{{{designated_other1_num_position|both}}}|both|bottom=a}}|{{#ifeq:{{Designation/abbreviation|{{{designated_other1|}}}}}|???|{{uc:{{{designated_other1_abbr}}}}}|{{Designation/abbreviation|{{{designated_other1|}}}}}}}&nbsp;#}} replace with {{#if:{{#switch:{{{designated_other1_num_position|both}}}|both|bottom=a}}|{{#ifeq:{{Designation/abbreviation|{{{designated_other1|}}}}}|???|{{uc:{{{designated_other1_abbr}}}}}|{{Designation/abbreviation|{{{designated_other1|}}}}}}}&nbsp;{{abbr|No.|number}}}} {{#if:{{#switch:{{{designated_other1_num_position|both}}}|both|bottom=a}}|{{#ifeq:{{Designation/abbreviation|{{{designated_other1|}}}}}|???|{{uc:{{{designated_other2_abbr}}}}}|{{Designation/abbreviation|{{{designated_other2|}}}}}}}&nbsp;#}} replace with {{#if:{{#switch:{{{designated_other1_num_position|both}}}|both|bottom=a}}|{{#ifeq:{{Designation/abbreviation|{{{designated_other1|}}}}}|???|{{uc:{{{designated_other2_abbr}}}}}|{{Designation/abbreviation|{{{designated_other2|}}}}}}}&nbsp;{{abbr|No.|number}}}} {{#if:{{#switch:{{{designated_other1_num_position|both}}}|both|bottom=a}}|{{#ifeq:{{Designation/abbreviation|{{{designated_other1|}}}}}|???|{{uc:{{{designated_other3_abbr}}}}}|{{Designation/abbreviation|{{{designated_other3|}}}}}}}&nbsp;#}} replace with {{#if:{{#switch:{{{designated_other1_num_position|both}}}|both|bottom=a}}|{{#ifeq:{{Designation/abbreviation|{{{designated_other1|}}}}}|???|{{uc:{{{designated_other3_abbr}}}}}|{{Designation/abbreviation|{{{designated_other3|}}}}}}}&nbsp;{{abbr|No.|number}}}}

I think this should be relatively uncontroversial, but please ping me if it does seem to be contentious. epicgenius (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have made these changes in the sandbox, and you can see the results on the Template:Infobox NRHP/testcases page. Feedback is welcome. A question, also: the NP Gallery pages appear to use the phrase "National Register Information System ID" to denote the identifiers. Is there a reason that we are using "#" or "No." instead of "ID"? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I suppose this makes sense. Instead of

NRHP reference {{abbr|No.|number}}

we can have

NRHP reference ID

. I have also made a few spacing changes in the sandbox, because I didn't know the other IDs were formatted as #1234 rather than # 1234. epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Categorisation

Could someone please adjust this so it doesnt generate non-existent categories? Or encourage people who use it to create the categories as necessary?Rathfelder (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Please link to examples where this template is creating non-existent categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

‪Redwood City Historic Commercial Buildings, Butterfield House (New York, NY), Peterboro Land Office. All fixed now. Rathfelder (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

A red-linked category typically means that a category needs to be created, or the infobox has an incorrect value in it somewhere, or this template needs to be adjusted. Pinging MB, who recommended |nocat=yes to hide the red-linked category from the article, as I may be misunderstanding this situation. I see that the documentation recommends |nocat=yes for situations where a state-level map is not used, but we should be able to be smarter than that.

At Butterfield House (New York City), Infobox NRHP was converted to Infobox building, which talk page participants said was the right thing to do since this was apparently not an NRHP contributing property.

At Peterboro Land Office, nocat=yes was added to the infobox, but this property is a contributing property in New York state. It looks like this template may need to be adjusted to point to categories ending in "New York (state)" (e.g. Category:Historic district contributing properties in New York (state)) when a map of New York is specified. I suspect (without looking that Category:Historic district contributing properties in Georgia (U.S. state) may have a similar issue). This code should not be too tricky.

At Redwood City Historic Commercial Buildings, a map of the San Francisco Bay Area was used, causing a red-linked category. Again, the documentation says to use |nocat=yes, but it seems like the template could be smarter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

After poking through the code, it looks like I was able to fix the category handling for New York and that Georgia and Washington are mostly handled correctly. I think that we could use {{Infobox NRHP/locmapin2region}} or something like it to handle a wide variety of special cases in an elegant way, however. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, this has been a problem for years. It crops up also in some cases when city location maps are used also. There is this discussion that said templates should not put articles into categories automatically. But it looks like there was no follow-through (the suggestion was to manually/AWB add the cats) and then remove the function from the template. If you can do something better.... Rather than deduce the state from the map, would it be more reliable to parse the location field for one of the 50 state names? MB 01:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC) (You can search the WT:NRHP archives for "nocat" and find more info, I didn't look at all of them. MB 01:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Another consideration is should categorization be dependent on maps. Wouldn't that all get broken if the decision were ever made to switch this template to the OSM maps like at {{infobox building}} and several others? MB 01:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That is a consideration, but considering that many parts of this template are dependent on |locmapin=, not just the auto categorization, any deviance from that practice will require considerable forethought.

I read the linked discussion and the arguments against auto-categorization, and I do not find them persuasive in this case. The previous discussion complained that the auto-categorization had a number of problems, and as a result, people were using |nocat= instead of trying to fix the problems with the categorization code. As Doncram said there, "I support a campaign to fix the underlying problem". If I find the time, I will experiment with a refined method of auto-categorization and error-tracking based on the ideas in {{Infobox NRHP/locmapin2region}} and will post here with a proposed set of changes and examples. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Category targets

I've noticed on a couple of articles I've worked on that this template wants to categorize NRHP historic districts under "Category:Historic districts in STATE", whereas it seems to me like it pretty much always ought to instead be putting them in "Category:Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in STATE". Is there a case in which an article with this template would be about a "historic district" that is not listed on the NRHP? Isn't this template specifically for use on NRHP topics? Unless there's some sort of edge case that this is being done to fix, it seems to me that a lot of automatic miscategorization would be prevented by this change. I don't understand the template code well enough to fix it myself, but it'd help my editing if someone who does would add those words to the category code so that I wouldn't always need to add |nocat=yes to prevent redundant categories. Thanks for your consideration, all! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been using it for historic districts on local registers, and I presume others are as well. Perhaps that level of specificity is warranted? I'm not sure. Many districts are on both a local and national register, sharing the same or similar borders. Would those go in both categories? ɱ (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean that you're using it for districts that are listed both on local registers and on the NRHP, in which case, yes, it seems to me that those articles should be in both specific categories, and that there should be basically no articles just in "Category:Historic districts in STATE". I would have the Infobox:NRHP automatically put articles in "Category:Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in STATE", and then the editor could manually add the category for the local listing. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you please link to a couple of articles that demonstrate the problem? Also, are there articles that are automatically categorized into the type of category that you would like to see, or are all historic district articles placed into a suboptimally named category? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Currently, the template puts all NRHP sites with |nrhp_type=hd into "Category:Historic districts in STATE", and, yes, it seems to me that may be a suboptimal category for literally all articles, since if they have Infobox NRHP, they are presumably "Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in STATE". For examples, I was working in Category:Historic districts in Texas, where all of the twenty or so articles in the As, Bs and Cs are U.S. historic districts listed on the NRHP and belong in Category:Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in Texas instead; I suspect it's the same for all or nearly all of the other Texas articles, and in all the other states. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Public transit

Hi, as noted in 2013, the parameter "public transit" should be added to this infobox, seeing as many NRHP sites are museums, living history sites, tourist landmarks, train stations, and other commonly-visited landmarks. Infoboxes like {{Infobox station}}, {{Infobox shopping mall}}, {{Infobox museum}}, {{Infobox hospital}}, {{Infobox park}} already have them, however it's not worth embedding them into this infobox for simply one parameter (and may not even be technically feasible right now). Can someone add this parameter? ɱ (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone comment here? This still could be immensely useful for many articles I've been editing. ɱ (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

So, what would go in this parameter? The name of a public transit stop that's in/near the site? You must live somewhere with a public transit system that actually works and that people actually use... Living where I do, this doesn't seem like a useful piece of information to include in an article about a historic site, since there's little chance that anyone would visit a historic site in Texas by public transit; but, I'm guessing that to e.g. a New Yorker it could seem as important as including the address? I don't think it would "cost" anything to add the parameter to the template, since editors would still be free to not use it. That said, I don't have whatever permission one needs to edit high-visibility templates like this, but maybe someone who does will come along! :/ -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Yup it would work like it does for Columbus Museum of Art or Metropolitan Museum of Art; many other examples. All the cities and towns I've lived in have decent public transit, if only for the working class, but I understand it would be useless in much of more-rural America at least. ɱ (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm against this and don't like it in the templates that already use it. WP is not a travel guide and this is just not encyclopedic information about a place, just like we don't list hours of operation. This looks more like trivia to me - see SAP Center for how the infobox is extended by ten lines. It really goes against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which says the infobox is to summarize key facts from the article. The transit info is usually nowhere else in the article but the infobox. MB 03:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Meh, in cities the transit line that a notable landmark is on is pretty much as important as the street it's on. We're not providing a guide, but most encyclopedias or bios on landmarks, museums, cities, etc. describe accessibility, via transit, roads, bikes, whatever. Any complaints of a large infobox would be negated by collapsibility, like at Ohio Statehouse. ɱ (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Mapframe maps

I have added mapframe mapping capability to the sandbox, following the Mapframe maps in infoboxes RFC. Per that RCC, location within the infobox is a matter for local consensus - currently I have put it after the other maps, near the top of the infobox. There is also the possibility for the infobox to specify default values when parameters are not specified, e.g. marker symbol, if desired. - Evad37 [talk] 08:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for staging this. I can note to others that the infobox already has mapframe capabilities; this will just standardize, expand, and incredibly simplify it for all editors. I believe the standard already for the infobox is to have maps directly below the image, so unless there are any objections, we could implement that (and below other maps) as the placement. I would not suggest having a default marker in this case, given the wide variety of structures covered by this infobox. ɱ (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Evad37 [talk] 06:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Significant change to use of this template in Infobox station proposed

An editor has proposed a significant change to the use of this template in {{Infobox station}}. See this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

governing_body para

Primefac, I look at Category:Pages using infobox NRHP with unknown parameters for new entries and usually clean those up immediately as well as work on the older ones periodically (I had it down to 425). But with your removal of |governing= body, the category has over 20k members and is difficult to navigate. Please revert your change, or dump these into Category:Pages using infobox NRHP with governing_body so they don't get in the way. MB 23:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, got the info I needed anyway. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

adding height and floor count from building infobox template?

Building height and floor count aren't in Template:Infobox NRHP but they are in Template:Infobox building. Template:Infobox NRHP#Embedding talks about how to embed the NRHP infobox template into other infobox templates but it doesn't talk about how to embed other infobox templates into the NRHP infobox template. Reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/embed it sounds like adding this would work:

| embedded       = {{Infobox building
| embed = yes
| floor_count = 11 <ref name="emporis">https://www.emporis.com/buildings/134967/ernest-o-thompson-building-austin-tx-usa</ref>
| roof = {{convert|136|ft|m|abbr=on}}<ref name="emporis"/>
}}

But it doesn't. I tried |module= and |embeddd= without success.

Does Template:Infobox NRHP simply not support embedding other templates? Maybe I should update the page to use Template:Infobox building and embed Template:Infobox NRHP into that? Or am I missing something?

Here's the page who's infobox I'm wanting to update if that helps: Austin Daily Tribune Building TerraFrost (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

{{infobox building}} supports embedding other templates, and {{infobox NRHP}} can be embedded, so you can make IB building the "parent" template and IB NRHP the "child" and be able to use all fields from both. Just don't duplicate anything. e.g, if the address is in Building, don't repeat it in NRHP. MB 01:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Like this. Now all you have to do is add desired fields from {{Infobox building}} to the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Since Jonesey95 started this, I went ahead and moved the "common" parameters up, so the NRHP section only has the NRHP-specific stuff and the basic info is at the top of the infobox. MB 01:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Missing "built by" parameter?

In the sample infobox, there is a parameter ("Built by {{{builder}}}") that does not appear in the actual infobox as used in other articles. Is there some reason for this? If not, can we add it to the template? PRRfan (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. The template has |builder= and it will display is used with a value. Rocky Flats Plant is an example. Many articles don't use it because the builder is not known. MB 16:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I need to type |builder= , which will then display as "Built by". Thanks! PRRfan (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)