Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress

page is slow

This page is slow to load or scroll. Would it be better to move the list of each county out to articles for each state so the page loads better? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Progress#Separate_pages_for_each_state.2C_then_transcluded.3F above, too. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

For me, it locks up IE and won't do anything. I can't even exit IE - I have to kill it. In Firefox and Chrome, it will work, albeit very slowly. (And I have a fast connection.) And in Edge it is fast enough. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Idea

I use the progress maps a lot, but I think there is an additional way to present information that would be more helpful. In addition to the current maps, it would be good to have maps indicitating the number of unphotographed places (or places without articles) in a county. Very often I look at a blue county and there are only one or two places that need photographs (or articles). It would help planning photo trips if this information was displayed on maps, i.e. there is one place in this county that needs a photo whereas there are nine in this other county. This would be less useful for articles, but it could help as someone familiar with a certain region could use it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"Net quality" formula interpreted

The "Net quality" map reflects a linear combination of measurements, specifically by this formula:

netQuality = 0.75*articlequality+0.25*imagequality

where
1. articlequality = (startorhigher+0.5*stubs+0.25*unassessed-0.5*untagged-0.75*NRISonly)/listings
2. imagequality = images/listings

which I have been wanting to record, and just happened across. This oughta be reflected in note on the page methinks. The weights were set judgmentally, and there could be alternatives NetQuality2 and NetQuality3, say, defined differently. It's been noted that "netQuality" can go down by development of more articles in a given state or other area, counterintuitively sometimes.

Presenting it differently:

netQuality = [.75*(-.75*Articled +1.25*MultiCited +.5*RatedStart) + .25*Illustrated ] / listings

netQuality = [.75*(-.25*Articled +.75*MultiCited +.5*RatedStart) + .25*Illustrated ] / listings
             

or, simplifying: netQuality = (-.5625*Articled + .9375*MultiCited + .375*RatedStart + .25*Illustrated ) / listings

netQuality = (-.1875*Articled + .5625*MultiCited + .375*RatedStart + .25*Illustrated ) / listings

where
Articled = number of articles started in the county or other area (no matter what their quality)
MultiCited = number of these which have a non-NRIS inline citation included (usually in addition to NRIS being a source)
RatedStart = number of these which have been assigned "Start" rating in Talk page NRHP WikiProject banners
Illustrated = number of listings which have any file in their county row of list-article (whether it is a picture of the NRHP or not)
listings = number of NRHP-listed places in the given area

Note that -.5625 + .9375 + .375 + .25 = 1.0. that -.1875 + .5625 + .375 + .25 = 1.0. But in fact what is reported in the table and shows on the map uses a scale from 0 percent to 100 percent, rather than ranging from -.5625[-.1875] to 1. Perhaps any netQuality measure below zero is truncated upward to zero, then whatever is the netQuality average for an area is reported as if it is a percent measure?

This presentation of the formula highlights incremental effects upon average netQuality for NRHPs of a given area, e.g.

• create a new minimal stub article -> subtract about -.6 -.2 from the numerator of the average,
• add a non-NRIS inline citation to it -> add about +1 +.6,
• add any photo -> add +.25,
• achieve Start rating for it -> add about +.4.

Or, more simply:

• create a new stub article with a non-NRIS inline citation -> add .375,
• add any photo -> add +.25,
• achieve Start rating for it -> add .375.

The effect depends on how many listings are in the area. For a county area that has 100 listings:

• create a new minimal stub article -> decrease netQuality for the area by about -.006 -.002,
• add a non-NRIS inline citation to it -> increase by about +.010 +.006,
• (or, combining, create a new stub with non-NRIS inline citation -> increase by about +.004,
• add any photo -> increase by +.0025,
• achieve Start rating for it -> increase by about +.004.

That's how it seems to work, AFAICT. --doncram 07:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the net quality of a stub can be negative, i.e. worse than having nothing. That doesn't seem good to me. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to check the calculations for a few. For Carroll County, Tennessee, which has 1 stub-rated article, 1 Start-rated article, and 2 photos, for 5 listings, applying the formula yields:

netQuality = (-.5625*2 + .9375*2 + .375*1 + .25*2 ) / 5 = (-1.125 + 1.875 + .375 +.5 ) / 5 = 1.625 / 5 = .325

netQuality = (-.1875*2 + .5625*2 + .375*1 + .25*2 ) / 5
           = (-.375 + 1.125 + .375 +.5 ) / 5
           = 1.625 / 5
           = .325

which compares to reported "netQuality" of 32.5 percent, matching up, yay! But checking also for Archer County, Texas, which has just one listing, which has an "NRIS-only" article (although clearly more than NRIS was used as a source) and a photo, yields:

netQuality = (-.5625*1 + 0 + 0 + .25*1 ) / 1 = -.3125 (which would be rounded up to 0.0)

netQuality = (-.1875*1 +  0 + 0 + .25*1 ) / 1
           = -.0625
(which would be rounded up to 6.3)

which compares to reported "netQuality" of 6.3 percent, i.e. not matching up. Where any NRIS-only ones are involved, I don't know how the formula is actually calculated. --doncram 07:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

For counties having no articles created and no photos, 0.0 percent is reported. For several counties in Missouri where there is just one NRIS-only article created, 0.0 percent is reported. For several similar counties where there is just one NRIS-only article created plus there is a photo or two, percentages from 1.0 to 5 percent or so are reported. --doncram 08:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

subtle bug?

Looking at the actual code, I think there is some error in the programming which I will call "subtle" because it is not obvious; i don't see where it goes wrong. The programming is trying to implement the formula as above, including that it rounds up to 0.0 any netQuality calculated to be below zero. Perhaps there is some issue with lagged values of variables, or how the sequence of operations deals with a negative value

The relevant code section in User:Dudemanfellabra/UpdateNRHPProgress.js is:

// net quality
           if (temp.Total==0) {
               str="-"
           } else {
               str=temp.StartPlus+0.5*temp.Stubs+0.5*temp.Unassessed-0.5*temp.Untagged-0.75*temp.NRISonly
               str=Math.round((0.75*str/temp.Total+0.25*temp.Illustrated/temp.Total)*1000)/10
               if (str<0) str=0
               var test=str.toString().indexOf(".")
               if (test==-1 && str!=100 && str!=0) str+=".0"
               str+="%"

where for Archer County, Texas

temp.StartPlus = 0
temp.Stubs = 0 
temp.Unassessed = 0
temp.Untagged = 0
temp.NRISonly = 1

so the calculation should basically go:

str1 = -.75           
str2 = round( ( [.75*-.75] + .25 ) * 1000 ) / 10
     = round( ( -.5625 + .25 ) * 1000 ) / 10
     = round( ( -.3125 ) * 1000 ) / 10
     = round( -312.5 ) / 10
     = -31.3           
     = 0             (truncate up to zero)
     = 0.0%          (formatting)

but instead what is reported is 6.3%. So something is off; the program is not always accomplishing what is intended, as far as I can tell. From checking a few more counties, I have the impression this applies when "netQuality" is going to be on the low side, anyhow, though I can't generalize with confidence. Here it seems the result is off by 6.3 percent, and maybe it is only ever off by a small amount. --doncram 00:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You have an error, temp.Stubs should be 1. This makes str1 = -.25 (0+0.5*1+0.5*0-0.5*0-0.75*1). With this, the math (for net=6.3) is correct. Magic♪piano 01:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying that! I was consistent throughout all of the above in interpreting "stub" to mean above-NRIS-only quality. I have stricken above where the math changes, given that revised understanding. --doncram 07:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

continuing

Doesn't that -0.5625 for stubs decrease the net quality? That is, wouldn't the net quality be higher if there were not even a stub for a site, compared to a stub? That doesn't seem right. Also, a reminder: "articled" doesn't mean that something has an article about it, it means that it is bound by a contract. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Right, although the coefficient is -.1875 rather than -.5625, by this definition of "netQuality", the rating for a county will be decreased if an article is stubbed by an "NRIS-only" article, unless the county rating is already at zero. It doesn't matter if the new stub shows a photo or not, because the "illustrated" measure is based on what shows in the county list-article already. It doesn't matter if you add good external links to official site (including even external links to the NRHP nomination document and corresponding photos), if you create a gallery of photos, if you put in an infobox properly and make correcting adjustments. You can do all that and the "netQuality" drops. If you convert the external link into an inline citation though, then netQuality increases. --doncram 07:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

So, if I follow it correctly, if you have a county that has some listings, one site has nothing, and you add a NRIS-only stub for that site, it will decrease the county's new quality, whereas it seems to me that even a NRIS-only stub increases the quality. In many cases, a stub really tells all most people would want to know, and they can read the NRHP form if they want more. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

NRIS-only stubs arguably decrease quality, since the NRIS is known to have vague and outright inaccurate contents, to the point that confirmation of details (beyond the listing date, virtually the only thing in it that is certain) from other sources (i.e. usually the listing form) is needed. The penalty in the net quality score is reflective of relying only on it as a source. As doncram points out, the determination that an article does not rely solely on NRIS is made on the basis of finding a non-NRIS inline citation. If you think the algorithm should be changed, it is probably best discussed at WT:NRHP. Magic♪piano 13:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It is hard for me to see how having a stub with NRIS only is worse than nothing at all. For instance, suppose an entry has only a photo. That contributes 0.25. Now add a NRIS-only stub, and that brings it down to 0.0625!

I've seen links to other references where they pretty clearly got their information from the NRHP form. You suggested talking about changing the algorithm on the main project page, but I'll just propose something simple, with no negative coefficients (as a starting point):

• For a site, start with 0.
• If it has an image, add 0.25.
• If it has any article (even a NRIS-only stub), add 0.25.
• If the article is start class or better, add 0.25.
• If it has references other than NRIS, add 0.25.
• Then sum this for all entries. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This is on the main page: netQuality=[0.75*(StartPlus+0.5*Stubs+0.25*Unassessed-0.5*Untagged-0.75*NRISonly) + 0.25*Illustrated]/listings*100

This formula doesn't make much sense to me: (1) An article being unassessed raises the quality, (2) a NRIS-only stub is worse than no article at all. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

And what is the definition of "untagged"? Does that mean that it is not tagged for deletion, copyright violation, etc? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the code, it looks like untagged means that it isn't in any categories. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"Untagged" means that the articles isn't tagged on the talk page as part of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. It's a negative because (a) it incentivizes properly tagging and assessing articles within the scope of the project and (b) most long-term untagged articles are bad redirects or piped links to topics that are only tangentially relevant to the site in question. As for unassessed articles, the reasoning was that they're at least the quality of a stub, so they shouldn't be counted as negative just because we don't know exactly where they belong yet (though there's a slight penalty to encourage assessment).

In general, though, the formula is weighted in such a way to encourage article improvements based on a set of priorities. NRIS-only articles have a negative weight mainly because they're generally a huge maintenance issue that can do more harm than a redlink; while a redlink is upfront about its lack of information, a NRIS-only article is prone to having false or meaningless information and often doesn't say anything useful about what the article topic is or why it's a historic site. Illustrated start-class articles with proper referencing are the end goal, as they should be. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• untagged - OK. (Bibb County, GA has 73 NRHP and one is untagged. Is there an easy way to find which one it is?)
• unassessed - we probably need to go through and assess these.
• NRIS-only means that the information came only from the NRHP, right? Very often that is the only source of information. I haven't tried this, but take Hart County, Georgia HRHP and pick 10 of the houses and try to find information other than the NRHP or something that got their info from NRHP. My guess is that one would have a hard time finding anything not from NRHP. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

NRIS-only means information from the National Register Information System, which is the database of basic information about NRHP-listed sites that the NPS keeps. It only includes data and is separate from the nomination forms, which are a much better source of information (and available for all sites in Georgia). The NRIS is also the source of information for everything in Elkman's infobox generator, which is how we got in this situation in the first place; there were a number of editors who would copy an infobox from the generator, write two sentences based on the infobox data, and submit it with no additional changes. Category:All articles sourced only to NRIS is full of these if you want to see what I'm talking about. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Unassessed ones are in Category:Unassessed National Register of Historic Places articles, and one maybe should be able to isolate ones in any area by applying PetScan somehow. (Note the "Unassessed" category appears on the Talk page rather than in article space; PetScan has a "Page properties" tab which allows you to search for Talk page categories, but I don't see how to get it to find articles in a given county category which have Talk pages in the Talk page category.)

"Untagged" ones are not in any category as far as I know, but if I'm wrong and there is a Talk page category for them, then the category should itself be added to Category:National Register of Historic Places articles by quality. Perhaps the program could be changed to edit "untagged" articles or their Talk pages to add an administrative category.

I'd like for everyone to know what the weights are, which is the point of my posting here, but I think the exact weights don't really matter. Bubba73's suggested weights are easier to explain/understand. But any linear combination (i.e. using any weights) is going to yield approximately the same county and state map shadings. The differences of .5 rather than .375 for a regular stub article, and .25 rather than .375 for a "Start"-class article, are not very much.

I do personally think that experienced NRHP editors should always be adding inline citations that support any content that they contribute to articles. If content based on an NRHP nomination document is added, a reference to NRIS does not suffice, because like TheCatalyst31 says that indicates merely the limited NRIS database. Maybe there has been some confusion about this. If a footnote reference to the actual NRHP nomination document is not provided, that creates a burden to future editors to try to figure out where the info is from. The NRHP nomination reference does not have to be spelled out in terms of title and author and date of preparation (which is kind of tedious to extract), but there should be something at least like <ref>[URL]</ref> where "URL" is a link to the URL of the document. And that is good enough to take the article out of "NRIS-only" classification. --doncram 00:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

For some states, but not all, the info box links to the NRHP form. Does that need to be duplicated as in inline link?

I'm thinking more in terms of seeing where work is needed rather than coloring the map. I would gladly assess all of the unassessed articles in my state, if I knew how. And then I'd try to see about making stubs in my state more than two (or three) sentences. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

About NRHP reference To clear this up, hopefully, take this version of "Upson County Courthouse". It has unsourced material which I suspect you actually got from the NRHP nomination document. But the material, arguably, is effectively not sourced. It has zero inline citations in the text and should have been marked "NRIS-only" (i don't see why it has not been tagged that way). The infobox does have a link on the NRHP reference number which goes to this NPS Focus page, but in the WikiProject NRHP's language, that DOES NOT COUNT for anything. Note it is not an inline citation (it is not in the reflist), for one thing. For this one, the Focus page does show, and link to, the NRHP nomination document (well, actually this one is a Georgia Courthouses TR survey form), but the link to Focus is NOT itself a link to the NRHP nomination. The Focus page has other stuff, e.g. in a section now labelled "Asset Metadata" it includes several of NRIS database's fields (architectural styles, architects, significant years, etc. But a link to Focus is not a link to NRIS either...it doesn't show many fields that are in the downloadable NRIS database....in fact there is no way to link to NRIS's contents for this NRHP. To improve the article out of "NRIS-only" status, what is needed is for at least the following line to be added, as an inline citation at the end of the text drawn from the document:

<ref>[https://focus.nps.gov/GetAsset?assetID=34669b9a-ac90-4c37-9274-c41e7a553743]</ref>

That would suffice. What would be better would be a fully formed citation with a modified version of the following:

<ref name=nrhpdoc>{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: or Registration: |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate= }} with {{NRHP url|id=|photos=y|title=photos}}</ref>

For the Upson County Courthouse, for which NRHP photos seem unavailable and which is a Georgia form rather than a regular NRHP nomination form, I would likely produce it as something like:

<ref name=nrhpdoc>{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=80001251}}|title=Thematic National Register Nomination - Georgia Courthouses: Upson County Courthouse |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date=1980 |accessdate=January 7, 2016 }}</ref>

Does this help? This is getting pretty far off-topic for this page. How to cite NRHP documents is already at wp:NRHPhelp or it should be there, and if it is not clear there we should be conversing at its Talk page. --doncram 20:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That helps - I make changes to Upson County Courthouse that I think work. I'll look at the change to .js file. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The change to the .js file works! (except that it says "NHP progress stats" or something like that the first time you go to the county page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

About seeing "untagged" or "unassessed" or "NRIS-only" articles Further up on this Talk page, at #Untagged articles, Dudemanfellabra gave instructions for seeing unassessed, untagged, other types, at any county list-article using javascript. I never tried it previously, but find now it works great. Briefly, append the two following lines to your account's javascript control file (User:Bubba73/vector.js):

var NRHPstatsAuto = 'false';                       // per wt:NRHPPROGRESS#Untagged articles, line 1 of 2
importScript('User:Dudemanfellabra/NRHPstats.js'); // per wt:NRHPPROGRESS#Untagged articles, line 2 of 2

with no leading spaces on the lines, though. Then go to National Register of Historic Places listings in Bibb County, Georgia, a county that has an "untagged" article, per table here. At the left, under tools, you will have "Show/hide NRHP stats" available. Click that, and you'll see a yellow box reporting the numbers of each type. Click on "Show only untagged" to see which is the article that has no WikiProject NRHP banner on its Talk page.

[By the way, if you're changing your vector.js file, i suggest also adding

importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); //DYKcheck tool --this is Vector skin specific

to enable the "DYK check" tool for your account, too. If you're at the article in Bibb County (the one untagged one), the DYK check tool shows that the article has 6348 characters (998 words), and gives other information.]

It sure would be easy to clear the "untagged" ones. --doncram 19:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to the tool, I did it for Georgia. It was tedious going through 159 counties, but the tool made it feasible. There were about 10 untagged articles, but two of those were typos (mine, I think). There are probably > 30 NRIS-only articles in Georgia. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Great! Hmm, perhaps we should be able to see updated totals for Georgia somehow? But I see that the "Show/hide NRHP stats" tool doesn't do anything if you are at the state-level summary page National Register of Historic Places listings in Georgia, so I guess not. Anyhow, the wp:NRHPprogress page itself says (as of two days ago when it was last updated) there were 76 NRIS-only in Georgia and 8 untagged. (None of those were created by me, as you know; my last "NRIS-only" ones in GA were improved by September 20). When the page is next updated it will presumably show 0 untagged, and it will reflect any progress you make working on the NRIS-only ones in mainspace. --doncram 03:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It naturally took longer than tagging, but I've been through the Georgia NRIS-only articles that I had something to do with, or know something about. (There are other sites in the state that I don't know about.) I added a reference and expanded where needed. There was one in Glynn county that I don't know where the info comes - it doesn't seem to be from the NRHP form and the text was there before I worked on the article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

While doing that, I encountered some NHRP-only pages that were two sentences, like "X is a historic building in (city). It was added to the NRHP in (date)." and they would have an info box. I expanded all of these, but just that little information isn't that bad. You can get the location. It has a link to the NRHP form, if it is on focus - and if not, you at least get the NRHP number. Right now those are worse than nothing because of the weights, but they are something. And someone can add to them with less effort that starting new. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In the last update, Georgia jumped over the 30% threshold to 30.9% in the "NetQuality" measure, while its NRIS-only count dropped from 76 to 60, and it will climb significantly in the next update, too. I agree that for a lot of NRHP articles, connecting to the NRHP nomination document delivers much of the value to a reader interested in the topic. However for the reader who's not sure in advance of their interest, developing it more simply delivers more value that they wouldn't get otherwise, and delivers it more surely (the NPS and state websites are less reliable than Wikipedia) and forever in the public domain. And in many articles we deliver what i consider to be huge value by making connections between articles, e.g. linking to and from geography (towns and rivers and so on) and history articles, and between architects and their works. Essay Wikipedia:Articles must be written could be written better, but expresses the idea that yes the articles need to be written, then connections can be made. I think the important thing is that different editors can contribute what they like. --doncram 00:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd add that nom forms aren't immune to error, and that a well-developed WP article, written by an editor who's tried to consult as many sources as possible, is going to serve the reader by noting where those sources disagree on something. Only yesterday, I uploaded photos of an NRHP building to Commons and, so that I could categorize it, did some Googling for the construction date. I found three sources, all of which seemed reliable, that gave three different dates. If I were writing the article, I'd include a "Sources differ..." footnote; if we relied on the nom form alone, we wouldn't know that the date might be in error. — Ammodramus (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Photo weights

I think that we are pretty much in agreement that a photo of a site on the county listing counts 0.25 of the total 1.0. But how about a slight change - a photo on the county list page counts 0.2 and if there is a link to more photos at commons (commonscat=) add 0.05, for a total of 0.25. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Creating a different Quality Rating 2 measure would be up to whoever would like to program it, but that's a good idea to split out measurable components of the photo information. Perhaps also separate points for photo being on county list page vs. on the individual article (or penalize the lack of photo on individual article, equivalently)? Differentiate between photos of the place vs. not-of-the-place, i.e. photos of an empty lot rather than the historic house, maybe with extra points for a photo of someplace that is no longer there, recognizing contribution of editor who got the photo before the bridge got swept away. For a bot to update this progress page using photo-related "measurements" like that would require there to be some template or some NRHP infobox field to record those measurements in a clear way that the bot could understand. Quality of the photo itself could be rated, even, to differentiate between the drive-by ones taken at dusk (which many including me have contributed, as the best we could do at the time) vs. the ones where we feel really good about. :) --doncram 04:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of getting too detailed into the photos; photo quality is pretty subjective, and sometimes there's only one picture of a place because a second picture wouldn't really add much (e.g. a property with only one real line of sight to anything worth photographing). Besides, the quality rating mostly works because of its relative simplicity, and the more factors that get included in a rating the less likely people will be to pay attention to it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Anytime I find a photo in the county list but not in the article, or vice versa, I put it in the other one too. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, some time ago I suggested a change in the weightings, and someone (Dudemanfellabra?) pointed out that this would create a discontinuity in the time series of maps. The argument seemed convincing, and I dropped the suggestion.

However, if we're seriously discussing new weightings, I'd suggest that we move in the opposite direction to what Bubba and Doncram seem to be proposing. I'd say—

—Keep the negative rating for NRIS-only stubs. The NRIS is rife with errors, and now that Wikipedia's in wide use as an information source, including those errors in an article increases the likelihood that they'll be repeated by seemingly independent sources, which will make it that much more difficult for more conscientious editors to detect and correct them. We need to discourage production of such articles, and to try to fix them before more of their errors leak out and pollute the infosphere.

—Reduce the weight of a photo from 0.25 to 0.20, and the weight of a stub from 0.375 to 0.20 or 0.25. A stub, even a good stub, isn't all that useful to the reader who wants to know more about a subject; and while photos are nice, they're not necessary, and they generally don't add all that much to the reader's understanding.

This would produce a qualitative change in the progress maps: a county represented entirely by illustrated stubs would appear in a shade of blue rather than one of red. To turn counties red, it'd be necessary to produce start-plus articles. This would make the ratings, and the map coloration, more reflective both of the usefulness to the reader and of the amount of editorial work that needs to be done. Ammodramus (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I have three comments in response:

(1) I've seen plenty of stubs that really tell all I care to know. If something is of low importance, which the great majority of places on the Register are, a start+ article is usually overkill. If you want to know more about these, you can read the NRHP form.

(2) I keep hearing that the HRIS is full of errors. Can someone elaborate on that? Doesn't the NRIS mainly give the name of the site, the date it was added to the NRHP, its NRHP number, and the coordinates? There are errors in coordinates, often because of the use of the old mapping system, and these coordinates probably come from the NRHP form. How many errors are there really? I've never seen anything other than inaccurate coordinates.

(3) I think photos are important. I'd rather spend my time doing that than getting an article to start quality, for instance.

The NRHP forms usually go into a lot of architectural detail about a building - much of which a non-specialist (including me) doesn't understand. I'd rather see what it looks like. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The problems with NRIS are that (1) there are outright errors, and (2) the contents of some of the fields are hopelessly vague as used. Here's my catalogue of issue types (based on reading several thousand nominations):

1. Name of listing is misspelled (see e.g. Salem Landry)
2. Address of listing is wrong, usually because it is out of date (be especially watchful with listings more than 20 years old)
3. "County" is wrong, usually due to subsequent county-equivalent realignments. This is a big problem with some non-urban listings in Alaska.
4. Address of listing is vague; this is not an error per se, but it is a complicating factor
5. Place name is ambiguous, especially if the word "vicinity" is/was used. I have encountered listings where the main village of the named place is in fact geographically closest, but the listing is actually within different municipal bounds (and sometimes a different county). This is particularly an issue in New England, most of which is incorporated, but also affects other areas. Editors who remove "vicinity" from NRHP list locations do so at peril of introducing more error if they haven't verified location with respect to municipal boundaries.
6. Listings that cross county (and sometimes state) boundaries, but are not identified as such. (This was especially true of bridges between Vermont and New Hampshire, which are mostly in New Hampshire, but clearly have one end in Vermont. The boundary is for historic reasons at the western edge of the river, not in its main channel.)
7. Geocoordinates are significantly off (more than suggested by the shift in datum); I have seen coordinates placed in deep ocean (and not for a shipwreck), and in the wrong town, county, or state (at least one post office was badly off).
8. Date of significance is vague: is it the date the main building was built, restyled, or occupied by a prominent individual? Your job is to write a sentence describing the significance of this date in a meaningful way, without knowing which.
9. Architect/builder field is vague: One cannot write a sentence that accurately describes what the value of this field represents based solely on what is in NRIS: is it an architect, a builder, or some other figure important in the building's construction history (or some combination of the preceding)? I have seen this field populated by the name of an artist who painted on the building's walls; guess what the stub said before I got my hands on it?
10. Architectural style: Sometimes the styles listed are only present in the most modest of form. Sometimes the architecture is listed, but is not significant, and doesn't really need to be mentioned in a stub. Sometimes the styles are applied to different buildings on the property, and one is more important than the others.
11. Size: may be off due to subsequent subdivision
12. Number of contributing buildings/sites: may be off due to subsequent demolition

Note that these issues span just about every field in the NRIS database. Literally the only thing I consider to be accurate in the NRIS are the listing date and refnum, and probably the historic function/subfunction fields (which I mostly ignore). I'm now even wondering about the refnum, because I uncovered an error in a recent weekly list where the refnum was wrong.

BTW, I also think pictures are more valuable than descriptions, assuming you can capture the architecture (or other key features) well enough. However, in the absence of that sort of photo, and in the presence of ambiguous address information, an accurate description of the listing location and features is actually useful to a photo hound who hasn't necessarily bothered to look up the nomination. When I go on photo drives, I have notes with architectural features and location info (side of road, nearby landmarks, orientation of gables and chimneys, basic style), all from the form. Including this information in an article, along with a basic historical summary, is usually enough to make it Start-level.

Please articulate proposed changes to the information presented on the progress pages at WT:NRHP, which probably has a wider audience. Magic♪piano 14:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

NRHP coordinates quality

There may be some support (in discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Coordinates conversions, and should we be footnoting coordinates?) for beginning to identify the quality of coordinates of NRHP-listed places, perhaps by use of draft template {{NRHPcoord}} which would follow the {{coord}} in NRHP county list-article table rows and in NRHP places' NRHP infoboxes.

Suppose improved/checked coordinates are identified by a string "c-improved=yes" or "c-improved=USERNAME" within the NRHPcoord template. Then it would be possible for the NRHPprogress javascript program to count those instances and add two columns to the NRHPprogress page, one for the count of "improved" coordinates on the county list-article pages and one for the count of coordinates in NRHP place articles' infoboxes.

It would be done in the UpdateNRHPProgress.js script for the list-articles in the same way that number illustrated is counted (done by searching for "image=" + any following value, but now also search for "c-improved=" + any following value), and for the NRHP places in the same way that NRIS-only articles are counted (done by searching for Category:All articles sourced only to NRIS, but now search for something like Category:NRHP coordinates improved that would be set by the NRHPcoord template if relevant). Then the script could also calculate a percentage of coordinates improved, and write the 3 resulting values as new columns in the NRHPprogress page.

I just want to note that this looks feasible to do, programming-wise. --doncram 15:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The improved coordinates field would be good since the NRHP coordinates are usually on the wrong block, even. I'd corrected dozens and dozens of them, maybe 100 or more, in both county listings and articles. Usually I noted it in the edit comment, but not always. It will be a major chore to go back and find all of them, but it would be nice to get it done. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Old static maps

Is there a way to get old static progress maps (i.e. not the animated GIFs)? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The old maps are available in the file history of each map. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 14:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought of that, but if I go to history and pick what should be an old version (the way it works for articles), it shows the current map. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

History works a little differently for files; the old versions are in the "File history" section on the file page itself. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it now. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Update maps

I just updated the statistics - how do you update the maps? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

They get updated periodically, kindly done now by Magicpiano. --doncram 21:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, hmm, I might have thought Bubba73 had just updated the statistics manually for a few counties, now I am not sure if they had run the NRHP updater and updated them all. Which I just managed to do for my first time, yay! And, it is a good question: how do you update the maps? One way, presumably the hard way, is to go to the .svg files for the maps, e.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/NRHP_Articled_Counties.svg for the "Articled" map, and download it to your own computer, and open it in an editor like WordPad, and manually update it. This would mean literally reviewing each of the county codes like "c01049" or whatever and determining whether it should be moved from an 80% subsection within the Alabama section to a 90% subsection or whatever.

Hopefully there is a better way! :) --doncram 17:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, partway there. First, add the line:

mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=User:Dudemanfellabra/NRHPmap.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');   // try NRHP map maker

to your commons.js file. Then, in Microsoft Edge, purge your wp:NRHPPROGRESS page (see about purging in discussion section further below) and see that new button "Generate SVG output" appears at top of page. Press the button. In just a few seconds it is done. It has implemented an edit like this one which updated code for all four SVG files, based on the current info in the wp:NRHPPROGRESS page.

Next, maybe you have to manually copy the code for each of the four SVG files into separate files, and then upload those at Commons? Trying that, i copy-paste content for the "Articled" SVG into a new Wordpad editor document, and save it as a text file with .svg extension, named "ArticledAsOf2017May28.svg". At the Commons page, i try uploading, and select that file. It gives me warning "File extension ".svg" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (text/plain)." Hmm, i proceed anyhow, ignoring the warning, it then says "The file you uploaded seems to be empty. This might be due to a typo in the filename. Please check whether you really want to upload this file." And i stop for now. It would be great if anyone else would upload the SVG files or do whatever is needed, and explain a bit here.

The process for updating the maps has not to my knowledge ever been even informally documented (by either me nor Dudemanfellabra). It requires downloading the SVG files to your computer, editing them to replace the elements of the file that define where the map colors with portions of the content at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress/SVG, and then uploading the modified SVGs. Please do not upload SVGs unless you have verified that they are correctly formatted. I will try to document this more formally (with detailed instructions) at a later date. Magic♪piano 20:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that helped. The Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress/SVG page has what I will call "color coding" for each of the four maps; these are not complete SVG files ... they lack beginning and ending sections. Here's what worked for me (after "Generate SVG output" was done):

1. Download to my own computer a copy of one of the existing map files at Commons (i copied https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/NRHP_Articled_Counties.svg).
2. Extract into a "FirstSection" file, just the first part of the SVG file, up to where the color coding starts. You figure this out by comparing the full SVG file to the color coding section at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress/SVG.
3. Extract into an "EndSection" file, just the last part of the SVG file, after the color coding ends. This is the biggest section because it contains data for all of the state and county border lines.
4. Compose a new complete "Illustrated-2017-05-28.svg" file by bringing up the "FirstSection" file, saving it as "Illustrated-2017-05-28.svg" (choosing to just save as a text file, accepting that this will supposedly remove all formatting). Then with it still open, copy-paste in the "color code" section for it. Then copy-paste in the "EndSection" material. Then re-save again (to "Illustrated-2017-05-28.svg"). You can click on this file and verify that it shows the map image.
5. Compose new "Articled-2017-05-28.svg", "Started-2017-05-28.svg", and "NetQuality-2017-05-28.svg" files the same way.
6. Upload at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NRHP_Illustrated_Counties.svg: select "Upload a new version of this file", select the "Illustrated-2017-05-28.svg" file on your computer, enter a brief description of changes (this is required) such as "Update to May 28, 2017 data", and upload.
7. Upload similarly at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NRHP_Articled_Counties.svg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NRHP_Start%2B_Counties.svg, and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NRHP_Counties_Net_Quality.svg.

I think that was all. Hopefully this is enough for someone else to follow, or helps in writing up more formal detailed instructions. --doncram 04:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You can edit an SVG file in any text editor by right clicking on it and selecting "Open with". Just download the old file from commons, paste in the new CSS data where the old data was, save the file, and reupload it. You don't have to go through any complicated multifile acrobatics.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course it would be better if the script generated complete files, wouldn't it.

If the files have to be manually created, it seems more straightforward to me to concatenate entire files, rather than try to find and highlight and then delete a long passage in the middle of one (starting near the first "Alabama" in the file, or near the second, or third or fourth?). But I could make available a single "First And Last Sections" file with comment "Insert color content just below here" at the right place, so all you have to do is load that, go to the right place, then paste in the color content, then save as a .svg file. --doncram 21:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You should also do a server purge of all the files you upload, as well as of the Progress page. Magic♪piano 07:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Whatever that does, exactly, again this is a black art. Hmm, there is Wikipedia:Purge#Purge request to server telling how to purge the server for Wikipedia pages. So it seems that clicking on this request to purge the wp:NRHPPROGRESS page (and then hitting "Okay") should work to purge it. About the four Commons pages, it then seems to me that hitting the following four links (and then hitting "Okay" after each one) will accomplish what's needed:

• purge the Illustrated map at Commons
• purge the Articled map at Commons
• purge the Started map at Commons
• purge the "Net Quality" map at Commons

And probably the PROGRESS page should be purged _after_ the Commons files are purged, so

• purge the NRHPPROGRESS page

Knock on wood, those all seem to work. --doncram 21:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

error on a couple of counties?

Last weekend I got several photos in three counties in S.C, starting at the southern tip of the state and going up along the Georgia border:

• National Register of Historic Places listings in Jasper County, South Carolina
• National Register of Historic Places listings in Hampton County, South Carolina
• National Register of Historic Places listings in Allendale County, South Carolina

Previously Jasper was a shade of red and the other two where shades of blue. The maps were updated today, and the colors changed, but there seems to be an error.

• Jasper is now 100% illustrated, 10 of 10, but it is not completely red.
• Hampton is 85.7% illustrated, 12 of 14, but it is completely red.
• Allendale has 13 sites, 8 have photos and 4 have "address restricted", which seems to count as being illustrated. (That is another issue). I'm not sure if it is the right color.

But the colors of Jasper and Hampton seem to be revered in the illustrated map. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the map colors are correct, reflecting both what appears in those lists and what appears in the table on the Progress page. Jasper (dark red ie 100%) is between Hampton and Beaufort (both 80% orange), with Allendale north of Hampton (90% red). Magic♪piano 18:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think I was confusing Jasper and Beaufort. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Pecos National Historical Park

See Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Santa_Fe_County,_New_Mexico. Maybe adding Pecos National Historical Park to Santa Fe county list will mess up NRHPprogress runs, i am not sure. Maybe it shouldn't have an entry there (for discussion), so I didn't add it to duplication footnote at National Register of Historic Places listings in New Mexico. --doncram 21:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

If a refnum is used on more than one list, the progress runs, including the NationalRegisterBot runs that build the duplicate listings lists used here, will notice. This will result in discrepant counts between here and the National Register of Historic Places listings in New Mexico page if they aren't accounted for in both places. Magic♪piano 02:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Changes to this page

@Doncram: You are going to verify that you didn't break the scripts that update this page after making alterations to it, yes? (If you are not prepared to do that, kindly revert your changes. I, who have been running those updates, am not in a position to do so for the next month.) Magic♪piano 06:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, my intention was to streamline the top of the page, so that returning editors checking here could see whether there was anything new to see right away (see the revision date), and to begin to show what they might be actually looking to see (the maps come first), rather than seeing the longish introductory text and the static index to states. When I removed the text and index-by-states I deliberately left in place anchors and whatever I thought could make a difference to any script. Ipoellet restored the index-by-states, indicating they use that frequently, which is fine. (If there is one state in particular you want to go to, you could create a shortcut to it, though, e.g. wp:NRHPPROGRESSVI which I will create now to go to the Virgin Islands section, say.)

(and to finish that thought: wp:NRHPPROGRESSAL – wp:NRHPPROGRESSAK – wp:NRHPPROGRESSAZ – wp:NRHPPROGRESSAR – wp:NRHPPROGRESSCA – wp:NRHPPROGRESSCO – CT – DE – DC – FL – GA – HI – ID – IL – IN – IA – KS – KY – LA – ME – MD – MS – MI – MN – MS – MO – MT – NE – NV – NH – NJ – NM – NY – NC – ND – OH – OK – OR – PA – RI – SC – SD – TN – TX – UT – VT – VA – WA – WV – WI – WY / PR – GU – VI - AS, and omitting some other associated states/territories. --doncram 20:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC))

To be doubly sure this should not affect any scripts, i just reimplemented the removal of the introductory text only by commenting it out. I cannot imagine any way this should affect the running of scripts.

Magicpiano, I'm glad you've been running the updates, as I am one fairly regular reader here, and I'm sorry if you won't be able to do so for the next while. I wonder about running an update myself, but I am doubtful because it is a big black box to me, and I can't even get the status bars to work reliably for me, so I don't have much faith the big system will run properly if I try it. --doncram 19:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

If you aren't prepared to test for consequences, please don't alter the page. I doubt there are issues, but I am not in a position to confirm this, because I am on the road, with a computer from which I can't run the updates, and with limited time to spend here. I would also point out that this page is not only for returning editors. Consider what it should say to a brand new editor. Magic♪piano 23:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe the page is improved by removing the too-long text to the Talk page, instead. If you or someone else thinks a new editor needs a long introduction, you might consider adding a link to the Talk page or to a separate explanation page for them. Or restore some text, but please make it shorter so that the latest revision date appears within the first view, that is a significant improvement for many returning editors who would like to know whether there will be anything new for them to see, on this slow-loading page.

I don't know how to appease you about the alteration. It will not change the functioning of any script, it cannot possibly do that. In the relatively recent past I edited a footnote which did not cause any such problem. In the far past, back when the page was new, I think I made other similar edits which did not cause any problems. With all due respect, I'm sorry, you can't imagine any way that it could cause any problem, either. There can't be an embargo on all changes to the text on this page. If problems were actually caused regularly, you could pursue regular processes to have the page protected, but frankly I would oppose protection because it is not necessary for any reason. --doncram 00:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the introduction is overly long. It is also not hard to do scrolling. If you really want the update dates placed further up, I can see about modifying the script that places the data update dates when it updates the tables. The map updates are almost entirely manual and independent of the table updates; the date is entered manually and can probably be relocated (subject to testing).

Second, you first disclaim knowledge of how the script works, and then claim that it is not possible for the script functioning to be broken by your edit; this is inconsistent. If you don't know how the script works, don't say things like that. (There are some dependencies on the presence of certain content elements on this page. As above, I don't have the time now to figure out what they are. I don't know, and based on your own characterization of your abilities in this space, I doubt you do either.) Magic♪piano 06:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone posted on my talk page, so I got an email and logged on to find this. This is dumb. Would you comment out the lead of an article? Every page deserves an introduction. If we followed your logic, we'd just delete the entire project page WP:NRHP--no reason people need to know what this wikiproject is about, right? How about WP:NRHPHELP, WP:NRHPMOS, etc.? Let's just let everyone guess what every page is for. Hell, let's delete the entire WP namespace and just have articles. But really if you had your way, we wouldn't even have articles--just two sentence substubs on every topic. Your inability to make anything coherent and presentable to a reader really knows no bounds. I long for the day that I log back on and you are no longer here fucking everything you touch up.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at both versions, I have to support the restoration of the introductory text. I don't find it excessively long; scrolling past it isn't a big deal; and including it makes the page more useful to editors who're new to the Wikiproject, and might help avert potential problem edits by well-meaning new editors. I don't think that Doncram's suggestion of a link to a talk page or instruction section further down the page would be as helpful to people coming to the page for the first time: it's better to put the information right there than to make them follow a link and then return to this page. Ammodramus (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I support Ammodramus's position here. I don't see significant benefit in avoiding a little bit of scrolling here, especially since it is at best only a marginal improvement rather than a full solution to the perceived problem (which I don't personally perceive in the first place). I'll also point out that content pages require a high degree of solicitousness toward the reader, but as a project page that reader-focus is a bit less of a priority here.

The back-and-forth between Magicpiano and Doncram, despite acrimony, seems to be making good progress toward a real improvement: moving the update date toward the top of the page. Keep it up.

In general, there seems to be a lot of unnecessary antagonism being directed toward Doncram for simply applying WP:BOLD, due to past conflicts. Sure a lot of us disagree with the change, but that's what discussion is for. It's been successfully reverted, no "harm" done, and Doncram has built valuable knowledge and skills to maintain an important project resource through regular updates. Magicpiano does great work regularly updating this page, but is only one user and a single-point-of-dependency. Despite my respect for @Dudemanfellabra, I'm going to call him out for an ad hominem response: it was out of character for him and should be withdrawn. — Ipoellet (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for naming that for what it is. IMHO, the "past conflicts" grew from behavior like that being accepted and normalized. Like will U.S. politicians roll over on a new normal with each new instance. --doncram 21:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but don't take my defense too far. I would respectfully suggest that you could productively re-examine your own contributions to those "past conflicts" as well. Your critics (myself among them) had plenty of valid points, especially the blindness to criticism that you're starting to put on display again. — Ipoellet (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

getting updater to run

In section above, I am challenged to do my part and run an update myself, in part to verify that editing the intro text does not cause some problem with the updater. Okay, fair enough, I will try. Okay, I go to follow instructions at User:Dudemanfellabra/UpdateNRHPProgress, which tells me to put a line into my commons.js file, which I do, which is supposed to make an updater button available to me at the top of the NRHPPROGRESS page, which it does not. Does anyone else have experience with that, either succeeding or failing to get the updater button to show? I would be very happy if anyone else would try this. --doncram 01:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There is an issue with the button not always showing up on Chrome. Refreshing the page should eventually get it to appear. Magic♪piano 06:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, i had opened up Microsoft Edge browser previously to see if it would work there, which didn't. Now however after I purge the page (clear the cache?) there it does give the "Update Statistics" button. Purging the page in Chrome still does nothing, but I am on my way. I have noted previously that I have looked through the updater code to assess feasibility of making some changes, and I am interested in getting it all working then refining it. Section #NRHP coordinates quality above and current wt:NRHP#footnoting coordinates, are heading towards refinement of the system to highlight quality of coordinates (NRIS vs. improved-by-someone vs. unknown status). Thanks for helping me along. --doncram 17:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, yay, the NRHP Updater ran (in Microsoft Edge), and after 17 minutes it finished by updating the page. Maybe I should say that by purging, what I did was use the gadget I have selected in my Preferences (under Gadgets, under Appearance, "Add a clock to the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC and provides a link to purge the current page" ...clicking on the time-clock does a purge, which I think is same or better than merely clearing a cache). See also section above about how to update maps, I am trying on that now too. --doncram 18:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Introduction to the NRHP Progress page (formerly at top of the page)

The introduction text was: "The following is a collection of statistics showing how many pictures/articles about sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places have been uploaded/created, mostly by members of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Each section contains a table of all counties or county equivalents in a given state, with information about how many total NRHP listings there are in the county, how many listings have been illustrated, how many listings have articles covering them, and the quality of the existing articles. The percentages are then used to create the maps displayed on the main page of the project and in the Maps section below. At the top of the page, a compilation of the statistics state- and nationwide is also given."

"The tables on this page are updated regularly via a script, but feel free to manually update the numbers for any given state or county in order to keep the list as up to date as possible. If you do update a county, please remember also to update the totals and percentages not only in that county but also at the bottom of the state table and in the state/national totals at the top of the page. A historical chart of the data on this page can be found on the /History subpage, as well as instructions on how to create custom charts using this page's data."

State totals Alabama – Alaska – Arizona – Arkansas – California – Colorado – Connecticut – Delaware – District of Columbia – Florida – Georgia – Hawaii – Idaho – Illinois – Indiana – Iowa – Kansas – Kentucky – Louisiana – Maine – Maryland – Massachusetts – Michigan – Minnesota – Mississippi – Missouri – Montana – Nebraska – Nevada – New Hampshire – New Jersey – New Mexico – New York – North Carolina – North Dakota – Ohio – Oklahoma – Oregon – Pennsylvania – Rhode Island – South Carolina – South Dakota – Tennessee – Texas – Utah – Vermont – Virginia – Washington – West Virginia – Wisconsin – Wyoming Puerto Rico – Guam – U.S. Virgin Islands – Northern Mariana Islands – American Samoa - Federated States of Micronesia – Marshall Islands – Palau – U.S. Minor Outlying Islands

I suggest adding a date-updated mention at the top, which can be seen in article previews, i.e. by hovering your cursor over a link to the page (wp:NRHPPROGRESS), if your account settings allow preview of articles that way. I suggest editing to drop the directions about manual editing, and otherwise reduce, to perhaps:

"(Data currently updated through May 28, 2017 and maps updated to May 28, 2017)"

"Tabulated by a script onto this page are statistics by county and state or territory of WikiProject NRHP article topics in mainspace. Maps reflect the percentages of article topics illustrated by a photo, articled (in that an article has been created), or rated Start or higher. A fourth map shows a weighted average of the other percentages, so roughly reflecting the percentage of work done, less punishment for any articles having only NRIS for a source, or being unrated. See /History subpage for historical charts and custom chart suggestions."

Of course this text can be refined, but I am going to put this version into place on the page a) to verify such change won't break any functioning, b) to get rid of once-sensible-now-not-sensible cautions/directions about manual updating, and c) get some improvement in place, after several days discussion/interactions. --doncram 00:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

With respect, Doncram, you seem to be missing the message that you're getting from the WPNRHP community: that either community members like the introductory text the way it is, or that they do not judge it to be worth the effort to bother changing it. I hope you're trying to hear what others are saying, even if it is sometimes in subtext. You might consider that continuing to pursue this issue amounts to "poking the bear". — Ipoellet (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the lead text was fine as previously written. The present edits are not an improvement, even after I edited them in the interim so they are not a grammatical embarrassment to the project. Magic♪piano 19:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of poking the bear: Doncram proposed edits to the page lead at 20:27 on May 30. He made the first edit to actually implement them at 20:37, just ten minutes later. I do not consider this to be a proper time period to gain consensus for such changes. Magic♪piano 19:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A new introduction was created and revised in these edits from Ipoellet's edit that restored a navigation box, through mine refining introductory text and addressing spacing issues, through Magicpiano replacing my attempt to sort of have a title (which I agree wasn't working) to Ipoellet's June 1 edit refining wording. Thanks for going ahead and changing what you thought was most important. I appreciate that Ipoellet and Magicpiano's edits did not lose the visibility of the latest update date for the maps, for readers previewing wp:NRHPPROGRESS. In terms of serving newer editors, I like that the introduction no longer misdirects them towards making manual edits on the page. There are less than 30 watchers of the page; I think that experienced editors are better served too.

About wp:POKING, there has not been any antagonism introduced by me here in all of the recent discussion on this page, unless you see an edge in my milder response to personal attack. Poking is about jabbing another editor again and again, and the only jabs I see are against me, unless you perceive any discussion or change at all to be an insult to an editor who has stated they will not participate (but jumped in with some negativity anyhow) and whom I believe really is not watching (they explained they only noticed because they got an unrelated message at their talk page, which generates an email to them). I wish them the best of luck in their studies, other endeavors.

My reasoning about simply deleting the introductory text, to start, was actually to avoid negativity that would be entailed in the alternative of discussing the faults of the text in detail. There could easily be insults perceived. The recent experience here doesn't greatly encourage me about the prospects for really friendly, collegial discussion about wording that should not be contentious. The prospect of breaking functionality surprised me. Really I think it is more respectful of others to go ahead and take responsibility and make some mild changes, rather than imposing upon others to create points of discussion and to take sides and to determine outcome. I stated and meant my appreciation for points of technical information provided by Magicpiano. I have respected the points made, including by Ammodramus that there should be some introductory text, so I wrote some and it got refined, great. I believe that having a formal RFC or advertising at wt:NRHP to involve more editors would be more of an imposition than a positive experience. I got from the getgo that Magicpiano, in particular, seemed not to appreciate the imposition represented by any changes being implemented or suggested at all, perhaps in a generalized way, and i made all effort I could to address what concerns they stated (about not breaking the script functioning) and to make their participation worthwhile, e.g. by my drafting documentation of the updating process in section on how to create maps, above. So I am sorry if others perceive my not asking and waiting for permission to make each of a number of minor changes as disrespectful; I in fact meant to show respect by avoiding bureaucracy and not making demands. Anyhow I think this is done for now, knock on wood, and i'll consider comments made here in the future when I make my best guess how to proceed in other situations.

I'll probably draft some instructions, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress/Documentation (currently a redlink) and will welcome refinement there. --doncram 17:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight. You make changes once, unilaterally (which is fine), and are essentially reverted by the actions of several different editors. Then you make edits in the exact same space, deliberately doing so in a manner that avoids seeking consensus, that are ungrammatical and otherwise ill-formed. And then you wonder why people are hostile to you? You could have simply stated here (before editing anything), that you thought the lead was too long, and did anyone object to shortening it. That might have actually started a more productive discussion, resulting in shorter language that all or most parties agree on. (I'm not hard-nosed in my objection to changing the lead, I just think doing so, and this discussion, are a terrific waste of everyone's time.) Magic♪piano 15:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That is nonsense. I obviously sought consensus, certainly did not hide anything, opened this and other discussion sections, invited others to revise what i wrote. I probably won't reply further. --doncram 23:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Access to history data

It would be nice to update some graphs on the pace of progress, but I don't see how to get the data. The page suggests that data from past revisions of wp:NRHPPROGRESS page can be accessed by following instructions at the History subpage, which suggests running the script User:Dudemanfellabra/NRHPProgressHistory.js. However I tried that in the past and could not get it to generate anything. Has anyone else had any success getting the script to generate any output? What is wanted is status information organized by date. --Doncram (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I updated all of them just now except the animated maps, which the script doesn't generate. The script takes forever to run, upwards of 30 minutes on my connection. The only indication it gives that it's running is the number of dots after "Querying old edits..." grows over time. When it finishes, a popup window opens with two textboxes for the main data and FA/GA totals, which you can copy into data files on your computer. You also need gnuplot installed on your machine to make the graphs, as explained on the History subpage.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Milwaukee non-duplicate

I don't know about how the bot system really works, to know if a manual edit is required to fix this.

But, the NRHPPROGRESS duplicates list identifies Light Vessel No. 57 (#91001823) as appearing in both Milwaukee, Wisconsin and in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, while it does not. It appears only in the former list.

Will one bot run or another "fix" the duplicates page? And/or will that be reflected in wp:NRHPPROGRESS. It doesn't matter in large scheme of things, this is just a support page anyhow. But maybe someone would like to make a manual fix, if one is needed. Pinging User:Magicpiano and User:TheCatalyst31 who have edits in the history of the duplicates page. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

NationalRegisterBot updates the list periodically, but hasn't run since May 15; it looks like Magicpiano removed the entry from the Milwaukee County list after the bot added it to the duplicate list. I manually updated the list to take that one out. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

NationalRegisterBot builds a preliminary list of duplicates, which the operator needs to check for changes that may be the result of error. This was by all appearances an unintentional duplicate, added to the county list by GreatLakesShips in between bot runs. The usual process is to remove the incorrect duplication from both the NRHP list and the preliminary list before generating the public list. I did both of these, so I'm not sure why it ended up in the public page... Magic♪piano 14:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Problem with Texas

Texas currently has NaNs and "error" for Harris County and the summary table. Chris857 (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chris857: Doncram and a couple editors have been working to split the Harris County list into several. I assume this is on their radar. Thanks for the heads up! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This has been taken care of. Magic♪piano 03:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

How to revise NRHPPROGRESS table when a county list-article is split

To document what needed to be done for splitting, as applied for splitting Harris County, Texas list-article into four parts. This is one editor's current understanding, perhaps imperfect.

• 1. Obtain good-enough consensus for how split is to be done (Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Harris County, Texas#Split)
• 2. Implement split out into four list-articles
• 3. Update wp:NRHPPROGRESS as by this edit, which creates rows for the four components, a duplicates row (to allow for the possibility of current or future duplicates, i.e. listings which appear in more than one list-article because they span across borders) and a totals row. The edit actually copied the already-split-out Los Angeles County, CA section, and then modified it where necessary, while leaving some incorrect California numbers in place. Note this includes the duplicates row as follows:

|align=center| ddddd |Harris: Duplicates{{WP:NRHPPROGRESS/Duplicates|Harris County, Texas}} |-

which oddly has no numbers in it, not even zeroes. Currently there are no duplicates identified, so a row of zeroes should show there. Somehow the NRHPPROGRESS page displays values in each column for each duplicates row, but there is nothing there, behind the scenes.

• 4. Edit at wp:NRHPPROGRESS/Duplicates to add a Harris County, Texas row there, allowing for possibility of duplicates, as in this combo edit. Hmm, this included putting in a row of zeroes, this is the "behind the scenes". It apparently is the case that a bot run which updates the duplicates (and is run only occasionally, like, monthly or so) could have done this. If a row of zeroes as placeholders or a row of actually appropriate numbers are not put in, then errors will end up getting displayed after NRHPPROGRESS updater is run.

• 5. Run the NRHPPROGRESS updater. If this runs to completion, then good. If this doesn't leave any errors showing, then great.

--Doncram (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

glitch in update

In this update, there are suddenly a couple thousand more articles in the totals. It looks like there is a problem in the line for Tangier, Morocco, which should show one listing but shows thousands now. User:Magicpiano, anyone else, does anyone see what could possibly have just happened? --Doncram (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem appears to have begun around Feb 8, when the Tangier line starts going wrong. I will have a look. Magic♪piano 18:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the error crept in (perhaps a memory-related problem when the script was run Feb 8), but there was code in the script that was just propagating the values in the table for that row. I have instead hard-coded them into the script (since they are unlikely to change), and added some defensive checks against some potential errors. Magic♪piano 22:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, for all of that! I am somewhat curious about how the script works, in terms of what it takes from the page contents vs. what it gets from lookups elsewhere, but overall I just enjoy that it works very well, and I am glad you maintain it. --Doncram (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, User:Magicpiano, there are glitches again in this most recent update. In Colorado, Broomfield County should have zero NRHP listings but jumped to show 15, and Adams County should have some listings but now does not show any. I just ran the update, am not attempting now to re-run or to "fix" anything. In a day or two I would expect to run the update again, maybe something would be different or maybe not. --Doncram (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like it fixed itself in your latest run. Probably some sort of timing thing... Magic♪piano 20:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

adding a duplicate across counties

Brief version: add the item as a row in each of NRHP county-list articles where it was missing. Then update the corresponding state-level list-article to add about duplicates in a footnote, and to show subtraction of duplicates above. E.g. to add Carter Road (Utah), revise List of RHPs in UT, as in this edit. Then let the NRHPbot come around, eventually, to update the supporting duplicates pages which must be updated for the main NRHPPROGRESS page to reflect the duplications. --Doncram (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

added a duplicate across El Dorado and Placer counties in California

This was about trying to do more in the updating, which didn't work. --Doncram (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully this works, to add identification of Mountain Quarries Bridge as being located in both El Dorado and Placer counties, not just Placer county. The NRHP document for the site gives both counties. Map view of the coordinates' location in Mapquest (which shows county lines) verifies that the river spanned by the bridge is on the counties' borders. (try this view in Mapquest). So I am sure this is a valid update.

To implement the update, steps taken:

• Add it to El Dorado County NRHP list-article, National Register of Historic Places listings in El Dorado County, California
• Update its description in National Register of Historic Places listings in Placer County, California
• Add to duplicates footnote within List of RHPs in CA
• Manually add it to User:NationalRegisterBot/AllNRHPPages/Duplications a "preliminary" list which is updated occasionally by User:NationalRegisterBot.
• Manually add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress/Duplicates which is linked from within the wp:NRHPPROGRESS page, e.g. from duplicates line in the California totals section. (This just added the specific item, but failed to update subtotals for state. See further update below.)
• Run the wp:NRHPPROGRESS script, done in this diff.

That seemed to work, except the last diff in wp:NRHPPROGRESS seems to show the California and national totals going up by one, when those should not have changed. :( --Doncram (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, i further updated the Progress/Duplicates page to update the California subtotals (within Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress/Duplicates). Changed 12 to 13 for number of duplicates, 8 to 9 for number illustrated, 12 to 13 for number articled, 4 to 5 for number stubs, no change for NRIS / Start+ / Unassessed / Untagged. At least I figure those are the meanings for the various numbers in the sequence there, corresponding to number columns in the NRHPPROGRESS page.

Then I re-ran the wp:NRHPPROGRESS script, i thought to completion, but nothing was saved. It should have updated the California duplicates row and therefore reduced the state and nation totals. Maybe the change was revision deleted by User:Necrothesp for some reason? (I think i saw their name in something that flashed by.) --Doncram (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

And I re-ran the script to update wp:NRHPPROGRESS. Again I thought to completion, but now I get some message relating both to User:Necrothesp and to User:Ad Orientem. Maybe this not directly related to the NRHPPROGRESS page, maybe somehow the script is going elsewhere. Sorry for bothering N and AO, if you see this and you didn't do anything just now, and maybe somehow this is about the Main page of wikipedia? What I was reported has no proper page diff to link to, and gives (copy-pasted):

Revision as of 16:35, 24 March 2019
Necrothesp (talk | contribs)
(edit summary removed)
Tag: Replaced
← Previous edit
Latest revision as of 16:37, 24 March 2019 (view source) (thank)
Ad Orientem (talk | contribs)
m (Reverted edits by Necrothesp (talk) to last version by K6ka)
Tag: Rollback

You cannot view this diff because one or both of the revisions have been removed from the public archives. Details can be found in the deletion log for this page.

The link for "the deletion log for this page" might have gone to the deletion log for the Wikipedia main page.

User:Magicpiano, does any of this make sense to you? Or perhaps does re-running the NRHPPROGRESS script work for you? Perhaps i blew something up, oh well. Running wp:NRHPPROGRESS does not seem to work now for me. --Doncram (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Updating the duplicate pages manually does not work. These pages need to be updated by NationalRegisterBot, because the data used by the progress script isn't in the human-readable tables. The best thing is not to worry about the duplicate counts, and let the bot fix them in due course. At worst, your edits to the duplicates will break something; at best, they will be ignored by the bot and the update script. Magic♪piano 00:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Magicpiano. Okay, I reversed my last edits on hte Progress/Duplicates page, then ran the NRHPPROGRESS update again, and it works again, although the wp:NRHPPROGRESS page shows not-yet-updated duplicates for California. It's fine by me for the totals to be fixed eventually, whenever, by the bot. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems to have been during the period when my account was hijacked and I was locked out of it, so I'm afraid I have no idea what's going on there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

bot request notice

I have requested consideration of a bot to automate updating of the NRHPPROGRESS table and for fully automated generation of the four maps. See Wikipedia:Bot requests#WikiProject NRHP project tracking tables and maps. I don't know if that would involve moving the current javascripts over to somewhere else, or involve reprogramming completely somehow. In a now-collapsed passage, I have suggested possibilities of some future changes, like perhaps dropping detailed tracking of duplicates, and about geographic coordinates checking, and about photo improvements needed or additional photos being needed (in all of which I am interested, but I may be alone or one of only a few). Please consider participating there! --Doncram (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What can I do to help

@Doncram: Hello, what can I do to help. Is the goal to find counties that need NRHP articles and create them? Or should I improve you current articles. It seems I should created. If you need any help just ask. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Nebraska counties in table

Something is messed up in presentation of Nebraska counties. Blaine County, which has no NRHP listings is shown having 5. Boyd County, which should have 5, is shown having 13. --Doncram (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I re-ran the progress report and confirmed this was still wrong, before posting it. But after reloading yet again, it seems to be okay. Somehow it was sorting wrong... I had it sorted by percentage articled, but the first column was still in alphabetical order. So seems like a temporary Wikipedia table sorting error. --Doncram (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Denver County duplicates

Morning, I noticed that the Colorado section is missing the duplicates for Denver County, knocking the overall count off by those 6 duplicates. Can someone go in and fix that for me? Thanks. 25or6to4 (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Magic♪piano 14:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Black Rock Site, a Utah duplicate

Per its NRHP nomination document, Black Rock Site (currently a redlink; see Draft:Black Rock Site), extends into Salt Lake County from Tooele County. In this edit i tried updating Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress/Duplicates which I see is usually done by NationalRegisterBot rather than manually. But maybe my edit is okay and then doesn't require the bot to be run? And in this edit i added it to National Register of Historic Places listings in Utah. And in this edit i added it as item "16.5" without renumbering the whole list, into National Register of Historic Places listings in Salt Lake County, Utah. Hope these edits are helpful in partway incorporating this fact. --Doncram (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC) P.S. Also the draft article is likely to be developed and moved to mainspace soon; I am trusting that the bot in the future will update the "unarticled" vs. "articled" status in counts as needed. Or pls. let me know if I can or should again update Duplicates manually about that. --Doncram (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Manually updating the duplicates file is not useful, it's not as straightforward as you think, and the bot will overwrite your edits anyway. Don't bother doing it. Magic♪piano 00:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Red River Gorge District adds two duplicates to Kentucky

In this edit I added to Kentucky's duplicates footnote that Red River Gorge District is not just in Menifee County, but rather extends also into Powell and Wolfe counties. In that edit I also updated the county subtotals in List of RHPs in KY and updated the number of duplicates to subtract, although I gather those changes would probably have been done automatically (following from the duplicates footnote change and from my adding rows for the district into the two counties' lists). I figured out that the district must extend because for Raised Spirits Rockshelter in Powell County this "LIVING IN THE RED RIVER GORGE: An Archaeological Story" article states it is in the Red River Gorge, and our Red River Gorge article states the entire gorge is NRHP-listed, while the Powell NRHP list did not mention it. And then This big MOU document describes bounds in 3 counties. Thanks User:Magicpiano for overseeing this kind of stuff. --Doncram (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Updater not writing over page?

FYI, I ran the statistics updater twice, which took about 19 minutes, ran to completion, said page was updated. But the page was not changed. --Doncram (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

10 years of NRHP progress

It's been almost 10 years...the tabulation was in development winter 2013.

# YRS AGO	Total	Illus.	% Illus.	Art.	% Art.	Stubs	NRIS	Start+	% Start+	Unass.	Untag.	Net Qual.
9 yrs (4/1/2014):	88,620	55,410	62.5%	48,063	54.2%	34,895	8,609	12,782	14.4%	2	384	35.6%
8 yrs (4/1/2015):	89,691	62,976	70.2%	53,063	59.2%	38,587	5,568	14,405	16.1%	2	69	42.2%
7 yrs (4/1/2016):	90,579	67,676	74.7%	57,005	62.9%	40,191	4,467	16,756	18.5%	1	45	46.4%
6 yrs (4/1/2017):	91,488	71,727	78.4%	61,658	67.4%	42,648	3,039	18,888	20.6%	5	68	50.7%
5 yrs (4/1/2018):	92,391	75,796	82.0%	64,738	70.1%	43,322	2,068	21,352	23.1%	7	14	54.2%
4 yrs (4/1/2019):	93,257	77,482	83.1%	67,787	72.7%	44,303	1,733	23,343	25.0%	2	101	56.3%
3 yrs (4/1/2020):	93,998	79,016	84.1%	69,955	74.4%	45,340	1,458	24,416	26.0%	11	145	57.7%
2 yrs (4/1/2021)	94,705	80,587	85.1%	70,688	74.6%	45,609	1,429	24,874	26.3%	2	152	58.1%
1 yr (4/1/2022):	95,354	81,608	85.6%	71,220	74.7%	45,072	1,368	25,904	27.2%	3	189	58.6%
Current (4/1/2023):	96,431	82,667	85.7%	72,161	74.8%	44,140	1,216	27,726	28.8%	9	229	59.4%

Comments?

The percent-articled increases by new articles created, decreases by new listings and by delistings of NRHPs having articles. I thought it was hovering just below 75.0 percent for a time, not sure when. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

A few patterns stick out to me:

• Percent illustrated has leveled off, and I suspect that means we've gotten most of the low-hanging fruit. What's left are a few pockets of the country that Wikipedia photographers don't live in and haven't visited for photos and the sites that will be difficult to get pictures of - archaeological sites, sites that are deep on private property, demolished buildings, etc. Which probably means we're going to be stuck in the 85-90% region for a bit, unfortunately.
• Percent articled has also leveled off, though there's still plenty of low-hanging fruit there, especially now that nearly all nomination forms up to 2012 are online. A number of prolific article writers have either retired or moved on to working on other things, and evidently they haven't been replaced by other editors. (I'm guilty of this too, even if I wasn't as prolific as some.)
• Start+ articles and the decline in NRIS-only articles are both bright spots. It would be nice to make a push to finish off the last thousand or so NRIS-only articles, since we've come so far in bringing them down.

TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting view. About 1/2 the remaining NRIS articles are in Florida, and another quarter are divided between Ohio and Texas. (In an obvious indicator of a scripting or data collection bug, Kansas currently has -1 NRIS articles.) The states with the most unarticled listings appear to be Ohio, Texas, and Kentucky, with about 2,000 each. (Texas and Kentucky join Mississippi with the lowest percentage of unarticled entries, all under 40%.) Magic♪piano 23:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue with Kansas was that Elk River Archeological District was still marked as NRIS-only on the duplicates page even though I added more sources to it back in December. Since you updated the duplicates page earlier today, I re-ran the script and the issue went away. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else has been doing this too, but I have been deliberately chipping away at the "NRIS-only" cases. The Ohio ones were done mostly or all by User:NrhpBot eons ago, long before nominations were available anywhere, especially in Ohio (which was different than other states, was not covered by NPS, like, ever). There were 131 NRIS-only's belonging to NrhpBot in 2017, and I have occasionally worked at reducing that slowly (just by working on NRIS-only in Ohio). I was finding the docs at NARA, for all or most of those.

At User:Doncram/SubStubsByOriginalAuthorByState I have a copy of parts of two "SubStubs" reports as of 2017 which gives counts and articles by editor, and within editor lists their Substubs by state. This was at a moment when I had finished zeroing out my own; if it were re-run I would have a few (These would include archeological districts which were in the Duplicates, for which I created all articles at some point, just to try to eliminate confusion about them, even if I could not find NRHP docs). I used that 2017 SubStubs report to systematically address NRIS-onlies of a few editors back then, and again recently.

About Texas ones, I think there wasn't just one editor who created them, but rather several editors, which could be seen in "Texas" sections in that SubStubs report. I'm more likely now to try to address Texas missing articles, at least in the sparse Panhandle area, using the Texas region reports I mentioned yesterday at wt:NRHP. But the yellow boxes which show NRIS-only at a county list-article (which show up if your account is set up for it), do not show for the Texas region report drafts, so I cannot easily find, say, the NRIS-onlies in NRHPs in High Plains (Panhandle) region (the best-developed Texas region draft). not a problem, it's easy to bounce back and forth from the region list to the individual county lists, and check their yellow boxes --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd join any editing campaign you want to start. There would be 3 to 6 or so editors, active relatively recently, to invite for a Texas-focused one; 1 or 2 for an Ohio-focused one. I mention below that I have been plugging along at NRIS-onlies, but not very perceptibly, and slowing more and more with time. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

White rather than black for "No listings"?

Could the shade white be used rather than black to indicate "No listings"? Black looks like the extreme of darkest blue (and similar to the darkest red, too). White would be neutral, in between very light blue and very light red. In the "articled" map in the Texas Panhandle area, especially, the change would make the real extremes stand out. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)