User talk:25or6to4

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

The counts for LaSalle County and Lake County in File:NRHP Illinois Map.svg seem to be swapped. I'd fix them myself, except it looks like the densities were calculated from the swapped counts, and I'm not sure how to fix those. Would you mind fixing them? TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got your email; hope you don't mind discussing it here. I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind for the new map. Are you imagining basically the inverse of the percent illustrated map, except percent un-illustrated? Because I don't really think that would be necessary---just look at the blue areas on the illustrated map instead of the red areas (indeed I think that's kind of what everyone does already).

If not, I assume you mean a map based on the actual number remaining in each county, which might highlight some small counties that have only, say, 4 listings, and 3 of them have been illustrated, so it shows up as 75% illustrated, which seems like more work than it is. If we created a map with something like a color for only one image remaining, a color for less than five, less than ten, etc., this small county would be brought out of obscurity and it would be easier to recognize that it was closer to being fully illustrated than some large county which is 90% illustrated but has 200 listings, so requires 20 more to get to 100%.

Even for that small benefit, I just don't really see the need for that kind of map. At most I think like a list dumped somewhere by the bot that listed the counties in order of how many images are outstanding would be useful. This could be like a "nearly fully illustrated list" or something, and could be linked from our project to-do list. I'm not sure the map form would help anything, especially if it's only run once. There's just too much overlap with the illustrated map in my opinion. What do you think?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the second part was what I was thinking, highlighting the counties with many available targets in a small area. Was more just curious as to what that would look like. No worries. Thanks!25or6to4 (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. You were actually thinking of using it opposite of me haha. I would be looking for counties with only 1 or 2 images left that might be easy to get up to 100%. You would be looking for counties with a lot of images left so you could go on a photography spree. Maybe I can produce a list sorted both ways; I'll work on it when I get some time. I still think a new map would be overkill, though; just look at the blue parts of the illustrated map.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am drafting Draft:List of county courthouses in Texas and, when using DabSolver about the Cameron County Courthouse entry there, I discover you have a draft for a List of county courthouses in Texas (at User:25or6to4/sandbox?). Hey, could you please move yours into mainspace, and allow me to add stuff there if I have additional material? I'd rather not duplicate stuff you have done and I would rather not push my new version into place, usurping your incoming work.

By the way, I am working on larger Draft:List of county courthouses in the United States Draft:List of courthouses in the United States, standardized pretty much on format of the already-existing List of county courthouses in Alabama. Yours is in somewhat different format but that's okay.

cheers, --doncram 22:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I moved the list over to the main page you listed. What the article could use is a color scale legend, but I'm not sure how those are built. 25or6to4 (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought your list was more complete, that it would have all the NRHP-listed ones which are in my draft. Interesting that you have 3 or 4 types apparently. Some version of color-coding like yours might go into the main list.

How about adapt one of these keys and put it at the top?

KEY

One type

Two type

Yet another

Key 2

Fourth type	Fourth type
	Fifth type
Sixth type

Thanks, --doncram 06:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you aware of Draft:List of county courthouses in Texas. Not sure why it is still in draft space, but why not improve on the draft, and move it to mainspace instead of creating a new article from whole cloth.– Gilliam (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of county courthouses in Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caldwell County Courthouse. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

National Register of Historic Places listings in Center City, Philadelphia

added a link pointing to Center City

National Register of Historic Places listings in Passaic County, New Jersey

added a link pointing to Mountain View, New Jersey

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you tell me your source for this edit? I have been unable to verify it using the sources available to me. Thanks. — Ipoellet (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list is the one I was using. 25or6to4 (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Ipoellet (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... for your many contributions to articles about historic buildings. Keep up the great work! :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a chance that you could modify the NR-by-county map by removing Bedford entirely? Your map shows Bedford as having 0 listings, but the reason that there's no Bedford city list is that the city recently downgraded to a town (see List of cities in Virginia for why this is relevant), so its listings are part of the Bedford County list, and it shouldn't appear on the map at all. Nyttend (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember having some difficulty with that one when I last updated the maps. This explains why. I have updated the map to remove the Bedford borders and number, and centered the 31 for the county. 25or6to4 (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to say that the place has been removed from the National Register. DHR's lists are primarily those of the Virginia Landmarks Register; they omit NR-listed places that aren't on the VLR, and they include VLR-designated places that aren't on the NR. You'll note that the delistings page even includs sites such as [1] that never got listed on the NR in the first place. Finally, having spent an inordinate amount of time to get there, I can testify that the Whitewood High School was removed from the NR just this fall, well after it got moved to the Delisted page as far as the Virginia DHR cares. Treating it like any other destroyed site is what I'd suggest doing. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 on 01:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you know if you could update this map? You deleted the city of Bedford back in October, but aside from that, it's not been updated in a bit over a year. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend, I am in the process of updating all the maps, but it is a labor-intensive process. 25or6to4 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found the original one. Apparently went from SH 121 & US 75 north of McKinney to new US 75. Now part of SH 121.Alexlatham96 (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the NRHP lists with new listings. Can you please make sure you use the correct refnums when you add them? Thanks! Magic♪piano 11:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the 2016 photo you took for Daigle House, in National Register of Historic Places listings in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, appears not to be the correct building. The photo in the Louisiana data system, at https://www.crt.state.la.us/dataprojects/hp/nhl/view.asp?ID=376, shows a different building. I noted discrepancy at Commons photo page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Daigle_House,_Lafayette,_LA.jpg and will move the photo from the article to Talk:Daigle House for discussion.

I imagine it is quite possible that the house at 1022 South Washington Street is not the Daigle House, that there is an error in the Louisiana data system (copied by NRIS). The Louisiana text file (at https://www.crt.state.la.us/dataprojects/hp/nhl/attachments/Parish28/Scans/28002001.pdf) does not give a street address. Hopefully the Daigle House still exists nearby, and/or hopefully you got a pic of it on your trip to the area. Could you possibly please check, and perhaps comment at Talk:Daigle House and perhaps edit at the Commons page? There is some simple way to request a photo be renamed at Commons, if you agree the photo is not of the Daigle House. --doncram 16:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the house was moved, or at least its address changed, to 1021-B. You didn't happen to have a pic of the house in the background, from another angle, by any chance? :) Anyhow, keep up the good work with your photo contributions. I will plug along and develop more Louisiana articles. cheers, --doncram 00:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember having trouble identifying this site before I left for my trip. Unfortunately, I seem to have guessed wrong. Doing a further examination, I think the Louisiana data system AND the Downtown Lafayette web site both have the wrong address. Looking at the map and aerial imagery, it should be the building at 1012 South Washington. That building matches the Louisiana state site, and business at that site matches what the Downtown Lafayette web site describes as a real estate company. No such luck on nearby pictures catching the building. Now the problem is figuring out what to rename the file to...25or6to4 (talk)

Thanks for showing interest in the lists!

It appears that the original list was created from a spreadsheet possessed by User:VinceLeibowitz who began that list. That original list included all counties in a single page that was definitely WP:TOOLONG. I had trouble editing that original list as my low-resource laptop would rebel and threaten to shut down if I did more than short edits at a time without leaving time for my processor to cool off. For that reason, I saw the need to split it up into separate pages.

I do not have a copy of Vince's spreadsheet, but it seems to be out of date anyhow. It certainly does not entirely conform with the THC atlas. Before beginning the list split, I had already audited >40% of the state's counties with the THC atlas including providing marker numbers with links, coordinates, street addresses, and Wikilinking towns whenever possible and incorporating those corrections into the original list. This audit also covered NRHP county lists and articles to fix any glaring problems in those.

The list split has basically been a copy/past job from the original page, replacing the county column with linkable county section headers, adding an images column, and adding images to sites in those counties I've already audited. This process has also provided me with a chance to give a second look at those counties I already audited to fix anything I missed the first time. The rationale I used in creating the page splits has been to keep individual site entries per page under 500 with some room for future expansion while keeping the entries per page roughly similar. These divisions are based upon the number of RTHLs in each county according to the online THC atlas and not according to existing entries from Vince's work.

I'm ignoring images for sites in counties I haven't audited in the interest in finishing the list split in a timely fashion. Once this is finished, I'll then resume my audit. Part of my process of adding images includes finding all relevant images in Commons and making sure they are appropriately categorized, so this can be quite a chore.

The counties that have already been audited can be instantly recognized as having sites colored according to the table legend, having all marker numbers linked to each site's THC atlas page, almost always having coordinates, and having cities and towns Wikilinked. The audit began in the state's far west, and has increased eastward incrementally. All of the completed counties are west of US 281 (Wichita Falls to RGV via San Antonio). Getting the audit above 50% would include all such counties and a handful along the highway itself.

As far as progress so far, I posted the last split-off article last night. I just need to create links from county articles and county NRHP lists to the new page and deal with images. Then, I can finally reformat the original, whittled-down list page for conformity.

As far as your offer of help for these new lists, what I would really appreciate is for you to review them stylistically compared to other similar lists on Wikipedia. I provided navigational boxes at the top and bottom for each page, but I don't know if that could be improved upon. These are hard-coded on the pages rather than relying on a separate template. Perhaps the page leads could be stronger and more detailed, and maybe more cross-linking with other general articles about the state's historic sites. Make changes as you please or let me know if you have any suggestions. Fortguy (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 25or6to4, Texas & Pacific Steam Locomotive No. 610 is not listed in Anderson County but in Tarrant County (see). -- Hans Koberger (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the original listing was when TP610 was located in Tarrant County. But since it has been permanently relocated to Palestine, we keep all listing in the county they are currently located. That's how the lists are kept here at Wikipedia. Thanks for the interest! 25or6to4 (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the information :-) -- Hans Koberger (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_8oASXnTr4fkRMI5&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]