User talk:Dudemanfellabra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 1

[edit] Closing the MPRP

It's been a while, and the MPRP is about to be closed. I think we're pretty close to finishing, however I want to know what you think before I place my position on the issue. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've pretty much given up on it haha. I used javascript to use User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox2 as my main page, so I'm not really worried about it. I think the entire process was a failure, and there's no reviving it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, that's what David said from the start. I've seemed to have placed some distance between it and myself as well. If there was a discussion on how to run a main page redesign proposal, how interested would you be? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Meh.. I might participate here and there, but I wouldn't be as involved as I was with this MPRP. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks on Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama

This edit [1] on Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama violated our policies on not making personal attacks and editing in a cooperative and civil manner, specifically "Look dude, it's assholes like you that make the world a sucky place to live in. You muckrake and bring up crap to intentionally try to make people look bad. No one said anything about keeping her out because she was a woman; I thought we were mature enough not even to think about that. It's people like you that keep sexism, racism, and pretty much any kind of stereotypical hatred going. Get off your soap box and think positively.".

You can make points like that without insulting people in the process. Using the harsh language lowers the level of the conversation and is counterproductive for making your underlying point. It corrodes the Wikipedia community as a whole whenever people do that, and it's not acceptable behavior.

Please consider this a warning not to edit in that manner again. You can make those points without insults, and need to be more careful in the future.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A more favorable climate is at hand. But it will be hard to reach it in the direction you are headed. The road you want is one marked by collaboration and cooperation not attack and counterattack. We are all on the same hyway. Tumultuous behavior and name-calling is so........yesterday!--Buster7 (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea I probably went about that in the wrong way.. I just wanted him (her?) to know my thoughts. In my opinion, at least one person needs to step up and say something like that to let them know what everyone is thinking... then we can go about the cooperating/collaborating. I'm all for getting along with everybody, but I make it known when someone is being destructive. Once again, sorry.. I'll keep myself restrained from here on out. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Obama/Lobbyist

I removed the bit about "21 people" lobbying. It's called revolving door, and is incredibly common in DC. A lot of people work private section positions between government gigs, like Cheney between Bush I and Bush II. Unless it's in the specific two years Obama has mentioned, it's irrelevant. Grsz¹¹ 23:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty relevant.. The sentence I added highlighted that they weren't all lobbying in the past 2 years. I think it's worth mentioning that there are that many former lobbyists, if only to demonstrate how hard his claim of "closing the revolving door" will be. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] bot programming

I've been browsing at wp:bot and Wikipedia:Creating a bot. I'd like to be involved in creating a bot, at first for the simple task of converting infobox NRHP2 calls to infobox NRHP, and later for other purposes including creating stub NRHP articles. There's a Unix "tooluser" server in Germany, apparently, which could be open for use in this, and which I would like to use. And, it would be possible to coordinate in other ways, such as via a Google project. If you could be interested in this, I would be very glad to work with you.

Have you used Perl? I have used it just a little, in the past, and have a Perl programming book. For suitability here, including use of a wikipedia-related library, and for my application elsewhere, I am currently thinking i would most like to use Perl. Another alternative would be C or Cplus or whatever, as used by the former Nrhpbot that created a bunch of Ohio NRHP stubs in July 2007. The owner hasn't responded to me, but code for that is freely available. I don't have C and have no experience in it, but I could use C programming for a different application, too. I do know a couple C programmers. Maybe C would be better. I used Unix environment a lot in the past, it's great for lots of things. I wouldn't mind setting up a Linux system if i could find an old PC to use for that, but don't have one currently.

Let me know. If interested, perhaps we could move off-line to discuss by email. doncram (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Obama Cabinet Template

Thanks, that looks much better. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] barnstars, thanks for major NRHP infobox update

		The Template Barnstar
		Thanks so much for your attention to detail, demonstration of programming skill, and perseverance in developing the recent major upgrade of the {{infobox NRHP}} infobox. It's been a major success, adding great features and changing 20,000 or so articles without any subsequent problems. It's a privilege to work with you! doncram (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thanks for helping along with others in the recent, successful rollout of the new NRHP infobox. Your support and specific assistance in getting it done is appreciated! We did a good job, as evidenced by no subsequent problems being reported, although it affected 20,000 or so articles. And it was sure more enjoyable working as a team to get it done. Thanks! doncram (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notable non-cabinet positions

Respectfully, I would like to suggest a revert of your recent edit from "positions" to "appointments" and the removal of the Directors of the FBI and FDIC. At all times but particularly in the current post-9/11 and mid-recession atmosphere, both of these positions are likely to prove significant to the "Presidency of Barack Obama." I may be wrong about these particular jobs, but don't they serve at the pleasure of the president? In other words, had he had a compelling preference for someone else, he might have managed to obtain a resignation? Even if that's not so, while I did not add these names (I did just edit them), I would submit that they bear mentioning as being significant among the team that Obama's administration is working with during these challenging times, with the qualifier that existed indicating they are holdovers from a previous administration due to term length. Abrazame (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I could potentially support reverting my edit; I just didn't like that the term lengths were mentioned for those people and not for everyone else. Frankly, I don't think the term lengths are that important. If we added them back and changed "appointments" back to "positions," how about adding a ref tag on every "holdover" position, explaining that Obama didn't choose that person? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. For me, the only value of the mention of the term lengths is to indicate both that they are holdovers and how many years remain in their terms (neither of which was explicit as it stood without also adding the year they assumed the office). We could note in text immediately above the list something like "Appointees serve at the pleasure of the president except as noted", with superscript beside the two with set terms, who also happen to be holdovers, and mention that in small-text footnotes immediately below the list, such as "Appointed by George W. Bush in 2006 to a five-year term". Abrazame (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmations Of Barack Obama's Cabinet

Sorry for getting testy, i've just invested alot of time in that article and want to see it get up to FA status. As i've never gotten an article up to that level before, i'm greatful for your advice on how to proceed towards the goal. Spinach Monster (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Obama cabinet infobox (again)

Would you mind adding Christina Romer as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers? Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not a cabinet or cabinet-level post.. so no. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the last time I looked at that, Drug Czar was on there and the CEA wasn't.. I've raised a question over at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering about whether they were waiting for a nomination first. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I'd Like An Apology For This Edit Summary

[2]. You and I can disagree, but there's no need to step over the line. After I get rid of the rest of the names and put all of the refs into the cite news format, I just wanted to let you know i'll be removing the cleanup tag.

P.S -- Ronald Reagan is featured and is well over 100 kb. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I admit I crossed the line a bit and wrongly attacked you. I just feel like you're really too focused on quantity (as I've said before). Having a million edits doesn't really say anything about you other than you fix spelling errors and take 20 edits to do something that could have been done in 1. I realize that sometimes it's good to split up edits for easy reversion, and sometimes I put too many together at once, but taking a separate edit for every single name is a bit much in my opinion. I'll try to tone the sarcasm down in the future, but I stick by the quality over quantity thing. It's better to make 5 edits that change the structure of the entire page than take 500 edits just to fix grammar/spelling/formatting errors in a single section.

I'm fine with removing the cleanup tag, but I think there are a few more things that need to be done to the article. As I mentioned on the talk page, I think the amount of 1 and 2 sentence paragraphs is excessive, and many of them should be combined for better flow and structure. Also, the quotes from all the senators is a bit much; the article doesn't need every single senator's point of few. Unless you can talk more about the remarks (make them lead into a larger discussion of the content within them), they probably shouldn't be added. I would pick no more than one or two senator's remarks on the opposing side and the same with the supporting side.

Also, about the 100k thing. While it's not a requirement for an article to be under 100k to be an FA, it's a good rule of thumb by which to go. I suggest looking over the page I linked to just then and trying to make the article reflect that. You may even want to put it up for a peer review.

Sorry about the attacks, but I'm only trying to help you. I assure you I'm not trying to demonize you or demean you; I'm simply trying to get you to see the quality side of editing – not just the quality. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. The multiple edits aren't a conscious thing. It's just my style. And I have no problem with whatever I can do to get that article to FA status, and i'd be happy to take whatever advice you have on how to do that. We can still trim a little here and there, but I doubt the article would be much more than a skeleton if it were smaller than 50k. Somewhere around 80 would be alright, a split isn't recommended below 100. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not that interested to look further, but if this is just about Dudeman's edit summary in the diff that Spinach Monster provides to lead this off, I don't think anyone should be taking offense or demanding or giving apologies here. The edit summary there was "(Remove names for TOC; look at how much I did in one edit! I didn't take 5,000!)". It seems kind of humorously put, both in how it is like a little kid saying Look ma, no hands, and it uses exclamation marks. I interpret those exclamation marks as smiley faces. But perhaps there is other history going on, and humor is hard to get across, sometimes hard to distinguish vs. sarcasm. Maybe explicit smiley faces, too, would help. Outright sarcasm should be avoided, IMHO, as tends to cause too many misunderstandings. That's my 2 cents, anyhow. doncram (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] various

I think i'd like to nominate you to admin, so that you can be even more effective with your good work on the high-profile NRHP infobox, and for other reasons. I also really like the work u did on Meridian, Mississippi, though I am not familiar with all that u do / have done in wikipedia. You might watch / browse at wp:RFA, and get back to me if u r interested, perhaps by email (enabled for me, there's an email-to-me box at my userpage).

About another infobox, I wonder if you could comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Protected_areas#Template update. User:Droll asked me at my talk page to comment there, and i will, but I think u would have more perspective technically. I wonder if there is applicability from that back to the NRHP infobox in any way, too. doncram (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh, about the adminship, I don't think I'd really like to be an admin. I think it'd be nice to be able to edit fully protected pages and all, and a few of the tools sound like they would be pretty neat, but the bulk of being an administrator seems like its handling disputes between people and/or mediating an argument. I'm not really one to do that (I try to avoid conflict when possible.... and have been known to be a bit sarcastic when I do involve myself), so I don't think I'd really like to be one. If there were a position, though, that wasn't quite adminship (i.e. just allowed you to edit fully protected pages and small stuff like that), I'd be all for that. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Plantilla:Ficha de NRHP

Hi. Let me tell you, we're not as developed as you are, when it comes to templates. This infobox in particular, is used in our wiki by less than 50 articles, so, sincerely, I don't see the point in improving it so much as you have it now, in your wiki. Greetings. --Aibdescalzo (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] invitation

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's taking off! Almost 20 signed up so far. I wonder if you can start developing some stuff in a sandbox or two, to go into the WikiProject. I'd like to keep the wikiproject itself as a redlink for a day or two so that more people could sign up before we start. Maybe some outline of generic resources of use to help with local historic registers, vs. national level lists, vs. world scale ones like UNESCO heritage sites. There is List of historical registers article already, can be copied in as a basic resource list. If you'd like to work ahead with something. Maybe for launch 48 hours after i talked out invitations, so late evening Monday? Actually, i don't know how it works to start a wikiproject. It doesn't matter if u feel inspired to sandbox something beforehand or not. I have thought about this a lot though, and will have a lot of ideas as this project takes shape. Thanks for stirring me on about this. It should be fun! For the 'ell of it, i created my first non-North America historic site article, Arles Obelisk. :) doncram (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Woh dude.. I was thinking this was going to be like Nationally recognized sites in other countries.. not designates as small as local.. I think we should start out with nationally recognized sites and after they're all done, move down to state/province and local sites, creating separate task forces for each country probably (like WP:NRHP for USA). If we dive in and take it all on at once, we're doomed to failure. I suggest we start out small and build momentum before we try to tackle the millions of local designations out there. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:HSITES

Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic Sites is opened up. I took the liberty of assuming your support for the wikiproject meant you wanted to join as a member, and I copied your signature to the Members list on the main page. Please visit and add to, or remove, your listing there. It would be great to hear about what you're interested in the Wikiproject being, in your member comment and/or at the Talk page, shortcut wt:HSITES. Thanks for your support! doncram (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, your participation at Template talk:WikiProject Historic sites would be appreciated, whenever you have time. Dtbohrer set up a template, but something seems to be wrong, it doesn't display a California flagicon as intended. Discussion was first at wt:HSITES but i suggest detailed discussion about template programming problems be at the template talk page. doncram (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the template to display the flag.. Currently the only accepted parameters are "California," "CAL," "Canada," "CAN," "United-Kingdom," "UK," "World-Heritage-Sites," and "WHS," though. I'll look into the code later to see if I can work something around to make the code look a little better. I personally think it looks horrendous right now haha (no offense to the person who coded it), and I'm pretty sure I can make it a bit more understandable. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Any idea what was wrong with it? Personally I thought it was working, I decided to remove the parameters that had "task force" in them and just left it with only the state/country name to save some typing (which may have lead Doncram to believe it wasn't working as it should). By the way, yes it was jury-rigged and thrown together, based mostly on {{WPMILHIST}}, so I figured it wasn't pretty. Also, about your changes, if more task forces are added, wouldn't the string of }} keep becoming longer. --D.B.^{talk•contribs} 20:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the way the code was set up before, ({{#if:{{{California|}}}{{{CAL|}}} etc...) made it so that the infobox needed both California=yes and CAL=yes to display the Cali flag. In other words, placing the parameters side by side meant there was an AND function, meaning "If {{{California}}} AND {{{CAL}}} are set, do this." I changed the code to {{#if:{{{California|{{{CAL|}}}}}}, which is an OR function, meaning "If {{{California}}} OR {{{CAL}}} exist, do this." Yes, the string of end brackets will grow longer, but there's no other way (using this method) to do an OR function. Alternatively, there could be one parameter, |task_force= that controlled which task force to show, which in my opinion would be a much better way to code the template. I can code an example if you'd like; let me know. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Doncram set a up a testcases page with examples of the template, one of the templates used |California=yes and another used only |CAL=yes. I'm pretty sure the flag showed up in both. A "task force" parameter would be easier, but a |task_force2= would probably be needed just in case an article falls under more than one task force. --D.B.^{talk•contribs} 20:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] infobox nrhp

When ur on, could u pls. comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Railroad & NRHP Infobox Combos that still don't work? Thanks! doncram (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Infobox nrhp2 nhd calls

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Infobox nrhp2 nhd calls]] to pages that belong in it.

I tagged the category. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of tagging and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to remove the tag if you wish. However, removing the tag will not prevent deletion of the category if it remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Presidency of Barack Obama

I reverted your last edit to Presidency of Barack Obama. The matter receives significant coverage in the foreign policy section of the article, so your edit summary was incorrect. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I won't re-revert your edit, but I fail to see where the Prague announcement (or even reducing nuclear arms - besides proliferation in Iran) in the foreign policy section or any other section in the article. I'm fine with leaving it in the header for now, but there needs to be material added to the foreign policy section with sources in order for it to stay.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] quick question NRHP delisted

Hey, the template:infobox NRHP documentation doesn't seem to tell me how to indicate type for a delisted NRHP. (It gives formernhl, formernhs, and other former types, but not regular former.) I am trying to put in the correct code for Idora Park Merry-Go-Round, an apparently delisted carousel, am watching there. Hope you can help. doncram (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to specify a type.. just put a date in "delisted=". Even though the property is delisted, it isn't a special "type" like NPS-designated listings. The infobox is set up so that a type isn't needed if it's just a regular site, even if it's a delisted regular site. That's why I didn't like allowing "nrhp_type = nrhp". Adding a date to the deslisted= field will cause the bar to grey out and "Former" to show up. Nothing else is needed. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Also DtBohrer fixed this one by putting in a delisted=date. I happen to think that including "nrhp" and a new "formernrhp" as explicit types would be natural and simpler to explain in the documentation. And would cover the situation if you don't know the delisting date. In the absence of mentioning those types, I think the documentation would be clearer if it explained, just before describing how to handle NHSs and former NHSs, etc., how to handle regular NRHPs and delisted NRHPs. No big deal tho. Thanks. doncram (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, if you don't know the delisting date, you probably don't have enough information to know that the property has been delisted. Most delisted properties come with the date of delisting, so that won't be a problem. I'm still opposed to the nrhp input, but I could possibly add a formernrhp one (though it would do nothing without the delisting date). I see your point about the documentation, though. I'll get around to adding it soon.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mound Bayou, Mississippi

Hey, Dudeman, good to hear from you. Your photos and work on Meridian have been terrific. Mound Bayou sounds interesting as a project; I'd read about it and Davis Bend, but now can't find some of the references. Saw new ones online in addition to your references, including one about archaeology at Mound Bayou.

Thanks also for your suggestion about archiving. I should do that. Do you have a simple method to recommend? I was reading the Help page on archiving and it's the kind of instructions that make my brain turn off.--Parkwells (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Thanks - your explanation was more direct than on the Help page.--Parkwells (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Done through Dec 2008 - thanks again for the reminder and help!--Parkwells (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] indeed

Biloxi Light infobox does look great. :) If working on a general infobox, one feature that would be nice to copy from {{infobox Protected area}} is how it allows coords in DMS or decimal format. Thanks! doncram (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You do know that the NRHP infobox allows coords in both formats too, right? Look at the "Coordinates" section of the documentation. I usually use decimal format for places. You can even input decimal format and cause the output to be DMS.. or vice versa. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse the eavesdropping, so to speak. Let me get this straight....somewhere I can just tweak a format to get the coordinates presented the opposite way? At one point I spent considerable time running through articles on some list or another that had coordinates in two formats overlapping each other up above the infobox, going to some outside site and entering a set of coordinates to see if they matched before getting rid of one of them. This tweak sounds like it could save considerable time on that kind of checking. I'll have to look at that template documentation and see if I can make heads or tails out of it! Thanks. :) Lvklock (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha yea.. for an example, if you typed |latitude=32.74846 |longitude=-81.73638 and wanted it to display in DMS format, you could simply add | coord_format = dms... or if you had dms coordinates and wanted to display them in decimal format, you can type |coord_format = dec. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples! Lvklock (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Good to know. I didn't see explanation in the documentation though, so I just tried adding some specific explanation (copying your example here) into Template:Infobox nrhp/doc. Thanks! doncram (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, i am trying to use the decimal format option for coordinates, but find it is not adding a red dot to the map as intended. Can you take a look at User:Doncram/Richard Neutra House sandbox? The coordinates are displayed but not the red dot, which per my reading of the documentation should appear. (P.S. will take good look at your new template and get back to you, later.) doncram (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, now red dot shows. Never mind, thanks. doncram (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Lovely info box for NHRP, could you advise me on making one for State Parks? It really should already exist, and none of the ones that are similar are really applicable. EraserGirl (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised one doesn't exist already. Do you have at least a rough idea for what you want in it? I'll help as much as I can, but I'm currently busy working on another infobox haha (code is at User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox if you care to look). Infoboxes aren't that hard to make once you get the general pattern down. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I wouldn't expect YOU to do it, I DO want to do it myself. I guess what i need is someone to coach me through it. i have read the WP pages on info boxes and i find them just utter gibberish. I wouldn't even know where to put the code. is it like creating a userbox? cause i made some of them before. EraserGirl (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I learned by copying/pasting the code of one infobox and then just kind of playing around with it until I figured out the ins and outs of it. To create one, simply create a page (for this, I would probably use Template:Infobox state park) and copy/paste the code for an infobox in there. Anything in triple brackets {{{}}} is a parameter for the template, which makes it work. Like in Infobox nrhp, {{{name}}} is a parameter, and if an editor types |name=Mount Rushmore in the template, "Mount Rushmore" will appear at the top of the page. I suggest playing around with some stuff first and then if you have any trouble with a specific issue, ask me. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Park does exist but it is too general and hence I think pretty useless. So I guess if i added more parameters to it, it can be used for State Parks and still be used as it is. From what i UNDERSTAND regardless of how many parameters you add, it only displays the ones edited. The infoboxes for persons in the WP:BIO project are rather elaborate, but not many fields are in general use. IMHO to be useful the infobox for parks should include times of operation, exact address, entry/parking fees and such like. Would you agree simply adding about a half dozen fields to this template should solve my problem? EraserGirl (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of that infobox either. I would definitely just add more parameters to that one instead of making a completely new infobox. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

really dumb question, sometimes WP isn't very forthcoming. have you seen an info box for places that are historic but NOT NRHP? EraserGirl (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not a dumb question. The infobox of which you speak is actually the one I'm working on right now in my sandbox haha. I hope to have it completed within the next week. Wikipedia is in dire need of one. I'm sure when it's finished, you can find it posted over at WP:HSITES, the main project dealing with historic sites (and not just NRHP). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Combining nrhp infobox with stations

Well, if the version without the sandbox code works, I'll use it. I was under the impression that the only way I could combine them without the routebox segment knocking the NRHP segment out of whack was to use the sandbox code. ----DanTD (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help with infoboxes

Hi there! I'm trying to find an infobox to go with a pipeline article I'm working on, but it doesn't appear that one exists. Do you have any advice as to how to go about making one? I'm completely clueless. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I can't find an infobox solely for pipelines, but Template:Infobox PNG Road seems like it would work for the pipeline article. It allows you to input a length, a general direction (such as North-South or East-West), and the starting/ending point of the pipeline, along with an image, map, and other info. The infobox is meant just for roads, but it doesn't say the word "road" anywhere on the visible template, so the reader would never know the difference. If you don't want to use that infobox, you could probably edit its code to make it more applicable to pipelines. If you need any help with that, let me know! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I'll definitely give that a shot and see what I can come up with. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks as if it adds the category "Transportation in Papua New Guinea" to the article. I tried some tricks to remove the category, but it looks as if it's embedded in the template. :( JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah I figured something like that might happen. Why don't you copy the code of the infobox over to a user subpage of yours or something and try to determine where in the code the category is added? Once you find it, you can remove it and even possibly edit the template to further satisfy your needs. Template code is not that complicated if you can understand the syntax (Help:Template is a good place to start looking), but if you need any help, let me know, and I'll try to give you a quick tutorial and/or edit the template for you if you're better at learning by looking at others' work (which is how I learned). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I figured the next step would be. It just looks incredibly intimidating right now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I took your advice and came up with something. Can you check it out and see how I did? Any advice would be helpful, especially how to go about incorporating coordinates. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, great first draft! Normally it takes editors a few days if not weeks to come up with something like this. I hope you don't mind, but I made a few small edits to the template. Namely I:

Made all parameters optional so that if certain information (such as the length or start/end) is not known, it will not be displayed.
Optimized the code a little bit to take up less space and thus speed up load times.
Forced all parameters to show up on the main template page (but not on articles) to show the reader exactly what the infobox is capable of. This included showing a default image and map.
Allowed length (which is input in miles) to be shown in both english and metric units using the {{convert}} template.
I changed the name of the "pipeline_name" parameter to simply "name" for editor convenience.
If no name is provided, the infobox defaults to the name of the article.
and I added noinclude tags to keep the documentation from showing up on every article on which the infobox is transcluded.

I didn't touch the documentation part, though. From personal experience, I've found that writing a thorough documentation independently allows a person to really understand the true workings of a template. I encourage you to look over the changes I made to better understand the template. If you have any questions, just drop me a comment. I would suggest once the code is moved to Template:Infobox Pipeline (or anywhere else you want to move it), that the documentation be moved to a subpage by including "{{documenation}}" at the bottom of the page where the noinclude tags are. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! I've added a field for coordinates that should work all right (I lifted it directly from Infobox:Dam), and I've moved it over to the page you suggested. Here's hoping it works! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar
		For assisting me in creating Infobox Pipeline, I award you this barnstar as a humble token of thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome :).. And thank you! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] West Commerce Street Historic District (Aberdeen, Mississippi)

Thanks for improving the West Commerce Street Historic District (Aberdeen, Mississippi) article by adding the postcard. You don't seriously dislike my having created this historic district article as a stub, do you? Cheers, doncram (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I actually found a new site (here) that has postcards/images of tons of sites in Mississippi that are all in public domain, so I've added like 10-15 images today to articles. About the stub thing, I prefer not to create one to two sentence stubs because they don't really tell you anything. Having an article that says "Name is a building in location. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in year." is not helpful in my opinion. Yes, others may come along and expand the article, but why can't you expand it when you create it? I could have stubbed out the entire List of RHPs in MS if I had wanted to, but before creating an article I make sure that I have at least 3-4 good sources that I can at least get like half a page out of (and normally try to have an image ready too).. I try to at least get the text to the end of the infobox if that's possible. I'm not going to criticize your work or anything because it seems you work very hard to create all these articles; I just work differently than you. You would rather have 100 two-sentence articles, and I would rather have two 100-sentence articles.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you misperceive my interest somewhat. I don't go around creating stub articles for sake of creating them. In fact I argued against one editor doing that for all the NRHPs in MA and RI. What I want is to make it more feasible for new editors to engage in productively adding to wikipedia. I think the NRHP list-articles with their tables of mostly red-links (at first) and spaces for photos are great that way. I would prefer for local editors to be able to pick from that menu, and choose to take a picture and/or collect substantial information to create, say, a start-quality article. However, there are special cases when I think it helps to create a stub article in advance. For example, when it has been determined that there is a serious NRIS error, it can help to create the article and record the correct information, so that later the incorrect won't be introduced from the Elkman-based system. Or for example, to support a disambiguation page. Look at Commerce Street Historic District disambiguation page, and note my edit summary in creating the MS one: "NRHP stub to settle Commerce Street Historic District disambig page". In order for the disambiguation page to be allowed, by MOSDAB guidelines that are rigidly enforced, there must be at least one article created, and I randomly picked the MS one in this case. You've been adding to disambiguation pages, so I expect you understand that setting up disambiguation pages is an important part of coordinating article-naming in the NRHP list-articles, which in my view is part of helping the new editors.

Thanks also for your participating in the CT NRHP HD discussions. It is helpful that you bring and state your different perspective, even where I have disagreed. It challenges me in a good way. It certainly just now has been clarifying for me to consider the difference between the example of your and my interactions in MS, vs. the my interactions with Polaron in CT. I think i've been bogged down in making technical-like complaints, when what matters to me boils down to whether editing behavior is helpful and cooperative and sharing of information and civil in its intent, vs. whether it is confrontational and destructive and withholding of information and uncivil in its intent. Seriously, thanks. Thanks also for ur note at my Talk page. I understand if you want to bow out on the CT NRHPs, but I would also be perfectly happy if you cared to comment further there. Regards, doncram (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NRHP template

Template updated; let me know if there are any problems, not that I can fix it, but I can revert. Acroterion _(talk) 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I like how Acroterion claims credit for his cleverness about this one, at wt:NRHP. :)

[edit] nrhp infobox cleanup

About doing a NRHP Infobox cleanup drive right now, I don't know if u r aware several of us have been ~~working on a secret huge NRHP cleanup campaign that ends v. soon~~ busy recently, and there's actually a lot i have yet to finish myself. It would not be possible to add this additional stuff as a subdrive at the last moment. So, I'd rather let it wait 6 days, then come back to it after that. :) Actually, perhaps the 2 cleanup tasks within this could be done within some new framework of NRHP state coordinators armed with AWB tools, but that would be for a later discussion too. Anyhow, i can't help on it right now. Thanks for persisting with the infobox update, though, it is a real improvement to allow the CP stuff to be handled a lot more rigorously! :) doncram (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

But, Dude, u r lighting up my watchlist! I guess the drive is on... Hmm, what do you want? Can you open a subpage under wp:NRHP with a big list of the articles in the new category. Then that can be broken into chunks and split up, so u don't have to do it all. Let me help. doncram (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha I'm just going through the category and fixing them. When you fix them, they disappear from the category, so it's like a self-updating list. I'm gonna finish all the A articles tonight then take a break, so if you feel compelled to help, you can start with the B's haha. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Turns out most of the articles in the category have the "designated" field instead of the CP problem.. Haha apparently we missed quite a few back when we were doing the switchover. I just finished all the articles beginning with A (and the ones starting with numbers), which got us down to 1,389 left haha. I'm taking a break for the night, but I'll pick back up tomorrow. Later! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, i was thinking the category would stay in place after the change was made, in which case coordination of cleanup would have been more complicated. Okay, so keeping track of which ones had been addressed is not needed. Hmm, then can we just explain at wt:NRHP? I'll start a post there, will need your followup / clarifications on what others can do. doncram (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you were screwing up in your edits though! For example, in Augusta Downtown Historic District, you lost the NHLD designation. All the ones where "designated=" is in place, are NHL or NHLDs! I think you were tired or forgetting or something. Conversation opened at wt:NRHP, please add there. doncram (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that one just had HD.. it wasn't NHLD (thought now I see that I should have changed it to NHLD). I didn't change anything on any of them other than "designated" -> "designated_nrhp_type". If they were listed NHL or NHLD, I left them that. If they were listed simply HD, like Augusta Downtown, I left them alone.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are forgetting how it used to be done (understandably, as you probably never did it that way yourself). The "designated=" was entirely how NHL status was indicated. There was no need to have an "nrhp_type = nhl" field. If designated= is present, it has been indicated by that that the place is an NHL! doncram (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh! See I didn't know that haha.. I came along after that. I'll look out for that now! Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I responded a bit sharply to your comments at wt:NRHP. I would appreciate if you could tone it down a bit. Not sure where you are with me right now, this is confusing, what you say here vs. what you have just been saying at wt:NRHP. I am walking away for a bit, not just because i am a bit worked up, and everything is looking wrong, but also as i have to attend to non-wiki things. doncram (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Where I am with you right now is a bit annoyed. I stated my case at WT:NRHP, but I'll state it here again. These errors you keep bringing up are not my doing. I didn't introduce any of these errors. The errors existed before I was there, and I just worked with what was already there. The Augusta article had "nrhp_type=hd", so I assumed it was an HD.. reasonable? I just changed the designated parameter to designated_nrhp_type.... nothing else. I also don't see how simply using the "designated" parameter was enough to show NHL status.. the bar didn't display when designated was set to a date (I edited the code, remember, so I know how the old infobox worked). Even though "designated" was set to a date, there still had to be "nrhp_type=nhl" to show the bar. About the Appomattox case, I simply worked with what was there, not changing anything other than the parameters. Any information that was previously there wasn't changed by me, even if it was wrong.

I'm fine with you bringing up these errors and possibly fixing them (although I fixed both of these), but don't accuse me of introducing the errors when they were there long before I ever visited the article.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry about edit conflicts, i'll jump to a different part of alphabet. I thot using AWB, and setting it to skip to only the designated= ones, i would jump ahead of u. doncram (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)