Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/MPS cover sheets

Dividing work

I see elsewhere that Polaron suggests dividing this into ranges. Sure, do that, can do so directly in article by splitting table into sections. I'll split out a short section for myself. doncram (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

okay i inserted a few random dividers. Am done now. Feel free to delete the dividers if seem not helpful, it is just meant as a suggestion to try. Polaron, the info you are putting in looks great. Is this from manually downloading each one and writing these up? It must have taken a lot of work then. doncram (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I can sort of generate them semi-automatically by splitting the MPS ones from the TR/MRA ones then sorting by state abbreviation (not state name) then alphabetically by the MPS/MRA/TR name in the NRIS database. However, due to gaps, there are a few errors and I still have to just open the PDF file to confirm although for the most part it's on target. --Polaron | Talk 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay, good at least it is semi-automatic. Great if you want to do all, or as much as you like. You could also paste in that sorted list or lists, for others to help in cutting up and checking corresponding PDF files. Maybe this can all get done expeditiously, it would be a great resource. doncram (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff, making a whole lot of info readily available! I like seeing "Rochambeau's Army in Connecticut" pop up, that will surely be helpful, probably is very interesting. doncram (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Automatic processes instead

How about getting a list from the National Register that provides the name, state correspondence with MPS numbers? Instead of manually recreating all that. I did request this previously, and did not get such a correspondence, but could revisit that and perhaps now succeed. Also, the NRIS download does contain all the MPS names. Elkman has an interface which provides a list of them for any state, though he could not immediately find and extract the corresponding refnums / URLs. Perhaps his available lists may line up in refnum order to the list here. I just wouldn't invest too much in doing this all manually yet! doncram (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

recent edits

I think there's been some productive development here. I just noted this bold edit by Dudemanfellabra which I just reverted. Perhaps it is mostly good, but it implemented several changes, and overall i call it a bold edit. Perhaps also i may just be misunderstanding stuff, because of tone elsewhere of comments recently. Would be glad to get any misunderstanding resolved. But, from experience with other WikiProject NRHP support pages, I think it can cause further misunderstandings later if useful information is deleted in big reorganizations.

Anyhow, in this edit, one thing i question is the removal of mention that several editors, me included, have backups of most of the MPS forms, and the record of who has what. This is a workpage meant as an aid to editors, and is not currently a mainspace article. If it's being developed for a mainspace article i agree such info would not be appropriate.

Also, I am not sure that divvying the list up by states so it is no longer sortable is a help, but I also don't see that as harmful, either. --doncram (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't specifically developing it toward a mainspace article, but I was trying to make it seem more professional. As for the editors with backups of stuff, I wasn't aware that the small text at the bottom meant those editors had those forms. I thought it was a type of attribution saying "this editor checked these states to see if they were available," which I don't think should be on the page; I see it as somewhat bragging and misplaced acknowledgement. I've previously removed statements such as these on numerous other project pages as well (e.g. "a hint from User:X" or "User:X developed this"). If the small text is saying who has which forms in the event of a site failure, I would be more willing to leave it in there, but I think the text's purpose should be made more clear..

As for splitting the list up into states, I think it makes the page a lot more user-friendly because instead of having to scroll down to a state, you can just click on the state's name and be brought directly to it, saving at least a few seconds.. especially for states in the middle of the alphabet. For those at the beginning, one doesn't have to scroll too far, and for those at the end, one can just start at the bottom. If the state is in the middle (i.e. Mississippi, an area of interest of mine), the user has to scroll forever to get to it, and there isn't a heading to tell him/her when to stop. With the new TOC, it's easier for people to find what they're looking for faster.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll chime in here with some observations with recent edits. I've been filling in the gaps in the numbers, and have found that the older MPS were essentially in state order. But since about 2000, the files have been in chronological order. Separating this page into states would make adding the newer files more difficult (as least for me), as I would have to save the file after each entry, instead of appending 10-20 at a time. Having the sortable columns for the entire list of MPS helps a lot better at this juncture. Once the list is updated fully, then separating by state I think would be more useful, as long as it was kept up to date (like the NRHP national listing being updated every week). 25or6to4 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 25or6to4 for adding the MPS documents and links that you've been adding.

Thanks, Dudemanfellabra, for acknowledging your perception of "bragging and misplaced" priorities and what you perceive as being nonprofessional here. I sorta wondered if there was a personal edge that way, to your editing out mentions added by me, here and in wp:NRHPhelp, of who contributed what. I think that friendly mentions giving acknowledgements in wikiproject work pages is a good thing. And here, the list of states is in fact about who has what copies of MPS documents. I would prefer to add more acknowledgements of who developed this useful list, too. That costs nothing (except a tiny amount of filespace); why not? I think that is helpful, not unprofessional.

Another consideration is size of this list-article, and where the addition of state headers is going. Is the idea to then split the article into 50+ separate lists? I saw mention maybe at wt:NRHP or maybe at my or Nyttend's or Dudemanfellabra's talk pages of a proposal to split the list. I would rather have one-stop-shopping, for my own reference use. The edit added 50+ header rows which cost most of the ~15,000 bytes added (bringing article size to 291,637 bytes from 276,864 bytes). I dunno if 15k makes that much difference, but I'd rather have less overhead if it can all be kept in one article. --doncram (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I could agree to that, 25or6to4. I've noticed you adding the new MPS documents to this list (and that's what attracted me to the article in the first place), and I was unaware of the numbering system. I can wait to split the article into state lists until after you've filled in the gaps (btw if you need help, I can add a few). I still think, however, splitting the article into state sections for the same reasons I stated above. As to the size issue, maybe we could do something similar to what has been done at List of National Monuments of Ireland? Each county list there (state list here) is at a separate standalone article and is transcluded into the full list.

About the acknowledgements, I simply disagree with you. Even if we are in project space, there is still a level of professionalism expected by the average reader... especially in an FAQ or help document like NRHPHELP. They may not cost anything but filespace, but neither do pictures of my grandma's cats.. neither should be in a document designed to help people new to the project. Acknowledgement is in the page history. If you want to see who added something, look there.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated. I just found yesterday that going to the advanced search section of the Focus website and entering the reference number will at least give you the name of the MPS, and the djvu/jpg section will bring up a thumbnail showing if there's an actual document scanned in or the generic "not scanned yet" image so you can get the approval date. Only concern I would have is more than one person editing at the same time, but it's minor. I didn't even know this page existed until a few days ago. 25or6to4 (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] The whole reason I created this page was to provide a central location from which we could download forms and to which we could post the name of the MPS in connection with its number — prior to this page, there was no way that we could know which MPS form was what. Some months ago, the NPS was talking about taking down the forms specifically because of this page, so several of us downloaded all of them; that's why the small text at the bottom of the page. I certainly have no objections to this being converted into a list article; I just want everyone to be aware that this was not designed with such a conversion in mind. Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All done. All Focus-named MPS documents have been listed, through 6451043. There are other MPS above that, but not in the database yet. Rearrange and sort at will. 25or6to4 (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

status of docs and backups

Hey, I tried finding the MPS on Highway Bridges in Iowa, for fixing URL in Le Grand Bridge (1914). The old URL from here which Elkman incorporated into the NRHP infobox generator) no longer works. The new URL here, also does not work: it links to a PDF saying "this has not been digitized". The small notes at bottom of page indicate that Nyttend should have a copy. Hey, Nyttend, could you possibly pls. email it to me? Also, I'm concerned this suggests that more of the MPS urls now given don't work. --doncram (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a question for Nyttend's talk page... and the old links don't work either, so this is the best we can do until they digitize them.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that at least one new link doesn't work seems to be an issue to note for here. Anyhow, thanks Nyttend for emailing the document. Perhaps because it is so big (175+ scanned pages / 14000 k) it didn't come through my email all the way properly, on my current connection, but I can read it within Google Gmail's document view without downloading it. --doncram (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't know how many MPS forms have been posted to Focus so far, but some definitely have been; the Cross-Tipped Churches TR form is available, which is good because I've made extensive use of it. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Another error. I discovered that 64000811 (supposed to be MRA for Meigs County, TN) is a duplicate of 64000813 (the Moccasin Bend MRA). I accessed the Meigs County MRA document on the old website, so I know the NPS had a decent scanned copy of it at one time. --Orlady (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)