Property talk:P649

Fralambert removed the single value constraint in this edit. NRHP id's are in fact unique. With historic districts the id is for the district, not for the individual contributing properties. This is currently one big mess, so if someone is bored, but it doesn't mean we should remove the constraint. Multichill (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I will place the augmented historic districts as exception instead as delete the single constraint. --Fralambert (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

National Historic Landmark (Q624232), National Memorial of the United States (Q1967454), National Historic Site (Q1258086) and National Battlefield (Q203676) are not a part of the National Register of Historic Places (Q3719) program, they are only automatiquely listed when they are designed or established. Asd explained here, the White House, the Capitol, and the United States Supreme Court Building are not part of the National Register of Historic Places program. The best solution would be tho probably create complex constraint on the subjet, like: if National Historic Landmark (Q624232) it sould have also National Register of Historic Places listed place (Q19558910) or NRHP district (Q20856087). --Fralambert (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain why en:National Military Park contains As with all historic areas in the National Park System, these battle sites are automatically listed on the National Register of Historic Places.? Very confusing this. Multichill (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

If I understand the principle, when the government establish a National Battlefield (Q203676), it will be automatically listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a National Register of Historic Places listed place (Q19558910) or more likely a NRHP district (Q20856087). --Fralambert (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Ipoellet: Hi, since we agreed to use subject has role (P2868), sould we ask a bot to move NRHP district (Q20856087) to a National Register of Historic Places listed place (Q19558910) --> subject has role (P2868): NRHP district (Q20856087) format? Also I think that we sould create a complex constraint for the alowed type. What do you think? --Fralambert (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Fralambert: I think those are both good ideas, but technologically well out of my depth. I wouldn't know where to start. — Ipoellet (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Statistics by ressource types. Also the districts were moved today.--Fralambert (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

SELECT ?value ?valueLabel (count(?value) as ?count) WHERE 
{
 # VALUES ?value { "wd:Q47162123" "wd:Q20856087" "wd:Q47162146" "wd:Q47162186" "wd:Q47162172"}
  ?item wdt:P1435 wd:Q19558910 . 
  ?item p:P1435 ?name . 
  ?name ps:P1435 []; pq:P2868 ?value .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
}
group by ?value ?valueLabel

An also items by ressources type.

SELECT distinct ?item ?itemLabel ?designation ?designationLabel WHERE 
{
  ?item wdt:P1435 wd:Q19558910 . 
  ?item p:P1435 ?name . 
  ?name ps:P1435 []; pq:P2868 ?designation .
 SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
order by ?designation

--Fralambert (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are we sure of that ID for Boston Fish Pier? The generated link doesn't go to any asset documents, and I don't recall ever seeing a 9-digit NRHP ID before. Same value in en-wiki, but that could well be the same error, propagated. - Jmabel (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not sure how this will play out for us, but it looks like there is a new, incompatible format for these identifiers, with prefix codes added. See, for example, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/weekly-list-20180921.htm. Not all of these are likely to pertain to Wikidata items, but certainly 'SG', 'MP', and 'NL' will. Related discussion at commons:Template talk:NRHP#NRHP id number format has changed. I don't know whether this changes old IDs, but it definitely changes the format for new ones. - Jmabel (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Fralambert, Laddo: you've edited the regex for this before, would it be possible to change it to cope with these new formats please? (I've sorted it out on Commons, but I don't know regex.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that this is new format for identifier. The only change I see was the addition of a 9th number in 2017. this look like more a way to make the diference between the type of nomination. Like on this list, we have at least one delisting in Texas, and if we exclude the OT, it's that same old ID. --Fralambert (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Mike Peel: Changing the format would be easy: (SG|MP|NL|)(10|\d)\d{7} - however I haven't been able to test a single case were the link was working, nor even the Earl Hall case mentioned in the discussion SG100002189. Can you give at least one example of a working link with the new format? - LaddΩ chat ;) 20:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Auntof6, Jmabel: see above. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you mean the link to the NPS page that describes the place, I don't think any links with the new format will work. It seemed like they stopped creating those NPS pages (or maybe started creating them with different URLs) at some point before they started using the prefixes, because the links don't work for some places with 8-digit numbers, either. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

By my observation, it take four or five years to enter a entry on the NPS. I begin just to se the entries of 2013 and maybe 2014? --Fralambert (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jmabel:, I discover last week that the NRHP publish spreadsheet of all the listed places in the register. The properties added since 2017 don't have 'SG', 'MP', and 'NL' at the beggin, only 9 number. @Auntof6: If I understand they decided to put the new places in the National Archive instead. [1] Maybe we should change the format url to the new one. --Fralambert (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I try a constraint I seen in coordinate location (P625). It mostly that you can have more that one value if you have a reason. Il deleted Guernsey State Park (Q115036), and if it work, I will delete all the exceptions. --Fralambert (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Fralambert: I have noticed that the NRHP Asset Metadata specifies a title with -- whereas the spreadsheet uses one -. Example: Baxter–King House (Q4873827), spreadsheet search for 89001953 vs Asset Metadata. Which way should be the preferred usage? Bamyers99 (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

NPGallery Digital Asset Management System counts

Bamyers99 (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are several NRHP-IDs out there with status "OWNER OBJECTION". For example for Baker House from Alvar Aalto: Baker House (Q3714312) In this case the NRHP-ID is marked as deprecated. In my opinion this is not optimal, because it is not really a "wrong" id. You get for example information via this ID from the National archive: https://catalog.archives.gov/search-within/20812721?q=87002619 There should be a proper qualifier for "OWNER OBJECTION" status instead using deprecated status. --Arch2all (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Arch2all. Thanks for sharing this. I was finding these very confusing and I would also like to see a better way to designate these.

I'm also finding it difficult that archINFORM (the most commonly cited source for these) doesn't show the actual NRHP# or provide reference to where the owner objection was found. I've been trying to provide additional references when I find them, but they seem scattered and I would hope that there might be some place we could draw this information more systematically. Quercusechinus (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply