User talk:NrhpBot

Perhaps a list of the changes it knows how to make?

just so we can tell what it's going to do dm 14:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good idea, i'll spec out its stubbing process on the user page. pw 15:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

geolink

suggestion: add a geolink to the external link section, rather than just put the coords in the infobox dm 15:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crosslisting Reqphotoin for State as well as City

I noticed that this bot is setting the reqphotoin to both Ohio in general, and the specific subarea. i.e. 'Wikipedians in Hamilton, Ohio or Ohio'. As someone in Ohio, looking for local pictures I might be able to provide, the general Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Ohio was very cluttered and overwhelming, making it difficult to find things near me. While I am not 100% clear on the category policy, it seemed as though if possible, these items should only go in the more specific category Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Hamilton, Ohio. Is there a reason you chose not to do this? 132.174.23.47 20:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases the more specific category didn't exist, so the state was a good fallback, I can have it actually check and create the category if not, but I wasn't sure what the best way to do it was, I'm open to suggestions, the bot is still evolving... pw 13:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I listed the non existant category though was that I wanted to be able to create it in the future, but yeah, i agree, that cross listing is probably not the most optimal, but due to constraints on creating categories with less than X number of articles, I didn't want to ONLY put it in the city category when that wouldn't be created. I'm kidn of rambling, and I'm not sure there is a good answer, it may be better overall to just drop the reqphotoin stuff, but i'm not sure. pw 13:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe put things in the city category, then do a clean up when you're done to remove the sparse categories? Or some sort of pre-processing for what categories may be needed? I'm not sure what the restraints on coding a bot are, or what the data you're starting with looks like, so I'm probably not giving good advice here. The subcategories are useful since there are so many articles created, but the double listings hurt that usability. -132.174.23.47 13:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

When a title, such as Arcade Hotel or Adams School has no other article at that title, the title should not be given a qualifier like "(Springfield, Ohio)" or "(Findlay, Ohio)". Those are only used if another article of the same title already exists. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for more information. —Centrx→talk • 16:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check the "What Links Here" before you change this stuff, yes this is the case currently, but it was created this way to avoid moving the pages later since there are registered historic places that share the name. pw 13:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently fixing up some code on the bot to make it handle these cases better, the two you pointed out really should be dismabigs, so in the future the bot will scan the database and create the necessary disambigs if applicable, otherwise it will place it at the unqualified name location (without the parenthetical part). pw 13:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. As you say, if there are appropriate articles of the same title, then they should be created at the disambiguation page, and a disambiguation page with only one entry should not be created.

2. It is not necessarily the case that legitimate articles can actually be created for these other topics. Just because there is a red link does not entail that an encyclopedia article can be created. —Centrx→talk • 01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say that if a building or district was entered into the National Register of Historic Places, it should meet the notability requirements for an article. The redlinks shouldn't be a concern. - EurekaLott 04:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is notable if an actual, well-verified encyclopedia article can be created about it. These bot-created listings have no information beyond what could be put in a list of four columns on one page, and for many of them there may be no other well-sourced information about them. Note, too, that most of the listings in the National Register of Historic Places are not National Historic Landmarks. There are 80,000 listings in the National Register of Historic Places, which are nominated by anyone and not put to very high standards. Just last week, I walked past a place listed on this Register in Massachusetts. This building had no special historical importance. It was very merely old, and not very old, in a state that has buildings 100 years older. It was across from a building, now destroyed, that was the meeting house and church for this town in eastern Massachusetts. The plaque out front of the building was mostly about the attorney who had listed the building. Whether he did it for the prestige or for the tax credit I do not know, but there is nothing important about this building—there are literally thousands of buildings in Massachusetts that are of equal or greater importance—and, as the plaque made clear, there are little or no sources about the building, they had a difficult enough time coming up with the incomplete and unreliable sentence that they had. —Centrx→talk • 02:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

I have just taged the Ohio county stub templates you created for renaming. The usual order in naming stub tempaltes like this would be countynameOH-xxx-stub e.g AdamsOH-NHRP-struct-stub rather than Ohio-Adams-NHRP-struct stub. This follows the precedent of the Florida category and also the Ohio schools category. If you wish to have a say the discussion is here.Waacstats 14:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what's up

Hey, notice some activity with tagging First Presbyterian Church and a couple other pages. What's going on? If there are some general issues which the Nrhpbot could/should address, perhaps it would be helpful to mention such plans at wt:NRHP. By the way, I have personally been developing numerous disambiguation pages that include some NRHP places, to comply with wp:MOSDAB and the peculiar/particular requirements of WikiProject Disambiguation editors, which i have learned about.... doncram (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Phoenix Building/Cincinnati Club (Cincinnati, Ohio)

I have nominated Phoenix Building/Cincinnati Club (Cincinnati, Ohio), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Building/Cincinnati Club (Cincinnati, Ohio). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. American Eagle (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]