Template talk:Designation

From Deep web, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Designation/divbox)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Historic sites (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Deep web. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Deep web. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

What does this template do?[edit]

I think the documentation needs to be developed as part of the writing of the template, so that requested evaluation of this template can also address the development of the documentation. And so that evaluators can have some understanding of what this template does, from the draft documentation. doncram (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you call them template, the first parameter you type is the designation (i.e. "NRHP," "Mississippi Landmark," or "National historic landmark"). The second parameter can either be "color" or "text." If it's "color," the template will return the HTML color code of the designation you supplied; if it's "text," the template will return the text that will appear in the bar of the template. An example would be typing {{Designation|Grade I|color}} would return #FFC0CB. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, good, documentation is now started at Template:Designation/doc. In the documentation itself, I tried using the template to apply the WHS color, but {{designation|World Heritage Site|color}} does not work as intended. Or i am not qualified to be writing documentation. Or both. I'll watch the documentation page so will learn from how you correct what i tried there. Thanks. doncram (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Haha chill out dude. I'll write you some documentation so you can understand how to use the template... it just kind of takes time. We've edit conflicted like 5x in the past hour, so just chill.. I'll handle it and explain it to you through documentation. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Please can someone add an entry to this template for the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes in Scotland. The colour should be the same as for the English National Register of Historic Parks and Gardens (green/white), since it is an equivalent register. Call names should probably be "Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes in Scotland", "Gardens and Designed Landscapes in Scotland", and "Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes". Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Update request: "NHLDCP"[edit]

{{editprotected}}

To the administrator: Add the code
|UNITED STATES NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK DISTRICT CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY
|US NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK DISTRICT CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY
|NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK DISTRICT CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY|NRHP-NHLDCP
|NHLDCP|U.S. NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK DISTRICT CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY  = #CCFFCC
just below the regular contributing property line in the "National/Regional designations" section of the code.

There is a value missing from this template that is found on the National Register of Historic Places infobox template, that of the "National Historic Landmark District Contributing Property" [emphasis added to distinguish], abbreviated for the National Register infobox template as "nhldcp". Recently, one of the pages I monitor switched to use the combined "historic sites" infobox (which uses the Designation template), and the status as an NHLDCP was lost in the process. Could it be added in? The details for linking, color, etc. are at: Template:Infobox NRHP/conv. Thanks! Morgan Riley (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. thought for sure I had all the NRHP ones in here. Looking at the code, guess I was wrong. I put the editprotected request in above. Thanks for pointing that out!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Where do I add it? I'm not sure where the "regular contributing property line" is. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I created a sandbox that can just be copied. There was a little more to the edit that I had previously thought.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, done. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks you all! Morgan Riley (talk)

Canada request[edit]

Hello. Could someone please pipe the link "National Historic Site of Canada" to National Historic Sites of Canada so that the template no longer points to a redirect? Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to; see WP:NOTBROKEN. Ucucha 23:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Update to include abbreviations, Ontario Heritage Act, Quebec[edit]

The sandbox contains code that needs to be copied over to update this template. The update adds a third block of code, abbreviations, which will enhance compatibility with {{Infobox NRHP}}. It also (per this discussion) adds support for Ontario Heritage Act and Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

National Historic Sites of Canada[edit]

{{editprotected}} Could someone change the colour for this designation from white to red with white text, as its red (and the red/white combination) that is most associated with the national government. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please could you make the requested change to Template:Designation/sandbox and reactivate the request, because I don't understand what you're saying ;P — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I ought to have been more clear. Currently, NHSCs appear with white blackground blue text. The more appropriate colour would be red background with white text, as used by "New York City Landmark" and a few other designations. This change would not conflict with colours used by other designations that would ever be used for sites in Canada. I did make the change over at the sandbox, but I am not wikicode expert, so I hope I got it right. Thanks for your help. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Not looking too great — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I've copied the wikicode from other designations, and have now tried a few variations, and am at a loss why it isn't working. User:Dudemanfellabra seems to have an extremely good handle on this template, so I will leave him a note asking his assistance. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
It's okay, I can do it when I'm not being lazy. I've now put a proper test on /testcases. If you're happy with that I can implement. I'm also planning to do some rewriting of the code to improve efficiency. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Martin. That's fantastic. Sorry I couldn't figure it out myself. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Slow down here pls!!!!!!!!!!!!! --- We do not use white or red links are per Deep web:Link color Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers . Lets not hide our article because of the need for a nice color- - We have arleady talked about this and had fixed the Canada template and were waiting for this group to comply with all the others - this action here is a step backwards. Pls see Template talk:Infobox historic site#Red links and Deep web:Village pump (policy)/Archive 83#Link colours. User accessibility is much more important then POV colours.Moxy (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Please clarify ... looking at {{Designation/Supported designations}} almost all have coloured backgrounds, and quite a lot have white font. Are you saying that all of these should be changed? Or just Canada? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The links that Moxy has provided show that he has expressed a concern in the past, but there was certainly no consensus that red was inappropriate. The designations here all have coloured backgrounds and a lot of them have red background. I'm still at a loss to understand the problem for this one designation; in particular, why does it matter that a series of Canada-related end-of-article navigational boxes has adopted a white background with red maple leaf? This isn't a comparable template, and we can't really add the maple leaf icon here. And not all Canada-related templates follow that model. The problem with this template was that the white background was not very visible in infoboxes, and now that we are adding provincial designations (blue for Quebec, green for Ontario) that often appear in the same infoboxes, it was even less noticeable. Frankly, the white was so terrible it was just a matter of time before someone asked that it be changed. As far as I can tell from the links Moxy provided, this is more an issue with the coloured designations themselves than the use of red for Canada. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
yes they should all be fixed - as the policy states = Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers does any of this look like links? Not sure how this helps our readers when the links are all hidden. Could you pls provide a reasoning for not making the links visible for our readers as per our policy on this matter. As per previous talk can we change back the Canada one. A request by one editors should not override what was done before by a group of editors that have talked about accessibility. Moxy (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the change per WP:BRD. I note that the previous version has a custom font color (not the standard color for a link) even though it is similar. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that action - as for red links the policy clearly stats "A red link, like this one, is a link to an article that does not exist within the current Deep web project site" - So why would you make a red link?
This is not a proper instance of BRD, since the concern raised clearly addresses a broader issue than this one designation. There is no legitimate reason to treat this one designation differently while we address the rest. And, by the way, this one designation was only fairly recently changed from red to white, with dubious consensus to do so (as noted above), and if BRD applies at all, it should apply to the beginning when this issue was first raised. The original switch to white was, as Moxy desribes this change, the "request by one editor". The recent change simply puts us back to where we are, and in no way prejudices the overall issue that Moxy wants to address. I am sympathetic to the overall issue raised by Moxy, but am not sympathetic to treating this designation differently in the meantime. If NHSC reverts to white, then all the designations should. I'm actually not opposed to switching all the designations to white or some neutral infobox-friendly background. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed a situation where BRD applies. You made a request on 25 September without obtaining consensus. I applied the request in the spirit of WP:BOLD. This is now contested and so can be reverted while the discussion continues. Continuing to apply your preferred version is edit warring; please cease. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the change a few months back also did not have clear consensus, so consider my request an objection to that. And the objection here has nothing specific to do with this one designation, so I am at a loss to see how BRD applies, unless we go back to when Moxy first raised this issued a few months ago. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Those discussions involved about a dozen editors. This request was just from you. You are trumped I'm afraid ;) Now let the real discussion commence. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
And if you read that discussion about the change a few months ago, a number of editors questioned whethere the base policy was being correctly applied. There was certainly no consensus. The first request was no different than this one. I am also incredibly puzzled why we would revert a change, the reversion of which does nothing to meaningfully address the objection. Moreover, I think this is selection use of BRD - if we revert, we revert to the version from a few months back, as there was no consensus and it remains disputed.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this calls for common sense approach. Do you believe that this nice colors help our readers navigate the topics or are they there to make them look good. Deep web is for all users new and old - Our inexperienced readers will never no this odd colors are links. So again i ask why would we hide this links with all this colors? We are here to help our readers navigate not to make pages look pretty Moxy (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Moxy, I don't disagree with you. On balance, I actually agree with you, although I perhaps feel a little less strongly about it than you do. But I would have no objection to removing all the colours from this template. What I do object to is freezing this one designation, based on a questionable consensus a few months back, and then letting the bigger issue sit out there unresolved. They should all be treated the same. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes they should be treated all the same but for some odd reason this group has done nothing despite the talks from the past. A lack of action on the part of this group as a whole does not mean we should not fix one at a time.Moxy (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
No, but we don't apply policy or guidelines to only some lines of code, and not to others. Whatever the result of this discussion, it should apply to all designations - this interim situation is ridiculous (not to mention the interim situation doesn't even address Moxy's concern insofar as Canada-related articles go, because some designations (NHSC) have blue links, while others (Ontario, Quebec) do not). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Moxy: can I disagree with you slightly and ask for some clarification on your position?

I believe that our articles should look as attractive as possible and encourage people to read them. I think colour can play an important part in that. So we should not be looking at eliminating all colour from our articles. However I agree they should not get in the way of accessibility or ease of navigation.

So what are you looking for here? You think blue links should be blue and red links should be red, okay? In that case why is the current configuration forcing the font of the NHSC to a non-natural colour (#00006E)? Do you think other text should always be black, or you don't mind about that? What about background colours? As long as you can read the text, does this matter?

Perhaps if we could understand your position we can work towards a compromise. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will try to explain. I have no problem with colours in articles. I do however have a problem with "any" coloured links. I do not agree that #00006E should be used but that was not the consensus at the time of the last talk for Canadian navigational templates. As for readability/accessibility for new users and those with colour sight problems there is some serious problems with many of the colours here. First most of our readers (old and new to the internet) will never think something like  | colspan=2 align=center style="border:4px solid #FFC0CB;"|National Treasure of Japan  or  | colspan=2 align=center style="border:4px solid #FFE978;"|New York City Landmark  is a link. Plus allot of the text (thus there links as-well) dont even conform to WP:Accessibility rules that says "Some readers of Deep web are partially or fully color blind. Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches the AA level". All that said i am only here about the Canadian link because all this has been said in the past with no attempt by this project to fix it. I do not believe that projects/individuals should tell other projects what to do as per the Role of the WikiProject Council and Don't edit war over the colour of templates becasue thats why we have policies like Deep web:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates that say Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers. However I am willing to fight (talk -not edit war) for the Canadian link to be seen despite the fact I am not a fan of the colour being implemented (but it still looks like a link). Colour no matter how pretty they are should never override user accessibility or impend the navigational potential of a link. Moxy (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I can go along with this. So perhaps we should create a mock-up and then allow others some time to comment, and then change the whole lot? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Using borders instead of backgrounds[edit]

I'm just being a broken record here, and I apologize for that, but we need a solution either way here. Either we eliminate colours (or find another way in which to accommodate colours without interfering with the appearance of wikilinks), or we embrace the use of colours for all designations. How can I help move this along? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. You could help out by editing Template:Designation/colour/sandbox and replacing some of the more inaccessible/outrageous with tamer colours. After making changes you can see the effects by purging Template:Designation/testcases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I am going to give it a shot. Wish me luck. :) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
What might make sense would be to have white backgrounds for each designation, with an outline in whatever colour it was that they were each using. Something like:
National Historic Sites of Canada
I'm not really sure how to do that. Would it require another subtemplate for outlines? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
If this were to be adopted, we could use the /colours subtemplate for this because we wouldn't need it for the backgrounds anymore. Let's see if I can get a version in the sandbox which does this ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Great progress - I think it looks great in this style and look like a link. Moxy approved :-) ...Moxy (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
A first look at this new proposed style can be seen on Template:Infobox historic site/testcases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I really like the look of the new version. Above and beyond the link issue, I happen to think it looks better and cleaner. Thank you for figuring that out. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The full table of new and old is now available at Template:Designation/testcases. Some of the ones which had a white background may now need to change. Additionally some of the US ones look very pale now. Perhaps you could have a tinker with the colors and I will advertise this discussion in some relevant places. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea and support the change. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I edit conflicted on my reply to your original post and was going to suggest that you might like to update Template:Designation/colour/sandbox with the colours you think most appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I changed my mind because I remembered that I use the background colour in lists (under text), and a darker colour would be unsuitable there.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I replaced the three that used white with my best guess at an appropriate colour (orange for the Netherlands, red for Japan and Singapore). I will not be insulted in the least if someone wants to replace those with different colours. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As there has been no opposition I will start implementing this soon unless someone beats me to it. There is just one thing that Peter said which worries me. If these colours are used as backgrounds in tables then there could be problems because a colour which is good for a border (perhaps bold and dark) would not necessarily be the best for a background. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding Peter's comment, but since the colours are not changing, just the manner in which they are deployed in this template, wouldn't that be an issue regardless of this change? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't understand the technical aspects. Please have a look at (for example) this list where the background colours in the Grade column match those in the Designation template. If the template were to be changed to provide borders, would that give a border in the list rather than a background colour?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Those colours and those templates do not seem to me to be dependent on this template at all, but Martin should weigh in. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Few comments:
  • Most of the colours are not changing, but we are dropping all the custom colours in the text font. Therefore dark/bold colours may be a problem if they are still being used as background colours anywhere.
  • When I made the comment above I was anticipating that editors will come and tweak the colours in the future, not realising that they need to be suitable for backgrounds as well as borders.
  • I looked at Friends of Friendless Churches and see that separate templates (e.g. Template:Grade II* colour) are currently used to generate the colours. Skeezix is right: currently these is not linked to the colours in this template. But it could be argued that they should be the same, for consistency.
  • Using borders in tables is unfortunately not practical. As can be seen from Template:Designation/testcases, the bottom border of a cell above overrides the top border of the cell below.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I am actually not sure that the bottom of a cell does override the top border of the cell below. If you look at Template:Infobox historic site/testcases, the cells seem to function properly (maybe I am misunderstanding the issue). I am also not sure what the problem is with consistent colours - the borders all look fine to me as is, and they are presumably already consistent with other templates and charts where they need to be. The only way for someone to have a darker colour, even in the existing condition, is to use a different colour for the link, which is the issue we are trying to eliminate. It's not the implementation of borders that has eliminated some flexibility with colour choice, but rather the elimination of different colours for wikilinks.

I'm not bound to using borders -- to be frank, I was just trying to find a solution to someone else's concern, as a means of reaching a happy compromise. If not borders, what is the solution? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right - it is not a problem on that infobox. I was referring to the tables in Peter's example and explaining why borders would not work in that case. I have now updated all the colours to use the same as this template. And now I think we have talked enough - time for action :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I misread your comment. Just ignore me. :) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information above. I agree that for consistency, the colour of borders and backgrounds should be the same. I am happy with the current colours for listed buildings, even though the borders will be (pleasantly) pale. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The coloured borders in the testcases look great. I am able to read them for the first time (due to my visual impairment). Please move forward with this. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Deployed[edit]

I have made the change. There may be a few more infoboxes to convert to use {{designation}} though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Could I trouble you to make that change for {{designation list}}? I looked at it and wouldn't even know how to start. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I've converted it over in the most efficient way I could. There are a few minor changes to the spacing in the infoboxes now, but I don't have time to look into it further. If it is deemed to be a problem, then my changes to Template:Designation list should be reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The box above looks good, but in use on pages, the border seems significantly thicker. This might be fine for colors other than red, but thick red screams. Is there a way to thin the red border so it appears as above, to compensate? Yoho2001 (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there a way to thin the lines of the designation box so it appears as it does above? In current use, the box lines are noticeably wider and, being red, they tend to dominate any infobox, pulling the eye away from even the title, rather than complementing it. If the box color were shades of blue, yellow, etc., this would not be an issue. But they are red. Thanks. Yoho2001 (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
There have been no thoughts shared in one year, so I'd like to thin the width of the box lines a little. Please advise on how to accomplish this. Thanks. Yoho2001 (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Would someone (MSGJ?) please reply to the question about making the red lines thinner. I've been seeking one for some time (the three notes immediately above). Thanks. Yoho2001 (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I am checking back yet again, more than two YEARS after asking the initial question about making the box line thinner. How long might an answer take? Thanks. Yoho2001 (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Color designations[edit]

Something odd happened, and I wonder if it had to do with the above changes. Colors for the state bars now blank out without showing what they are supposed to be. Examples: Berkeley City Club and Lahontan Dam and Bexar County Courthouse. Can anybody fix this? Maile66 (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, its the same for Mississippi Landmarks and Alabama Register sites that use Infobox NRHP. Examples: House on Ellicott's Hill and Mount Sinai School. The colors are still intact when used within Infobox historic site and Infobox bridge. Examples: Belvoir and Bankhead Tunnel. Altairisfar (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Checking... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I think Dudemanfellabra is sorting this out - it's an issue with the NRHP template not this one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
A fix is in the NRHP sandbox. If you can copy it over, MSGJ, the problem will be fixed. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Altairisfar (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I see MSGJ made the fix at NRHP, but I don't see that it restored the background color in the state designation bars. Maile66 (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Try purging. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Everything is fine now. Thanks for taking care of this. Maile66 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Repurpose template[edit]

Almost all uses of this template now directly call the subtemplates /colour and /text directly rather than calling the main template Template:Designation. I propose to repurpose this main template, to produce the whole box including colours and text. This will keep the code centralised and will make it easier when it comes to changing the colour scheme and style (per discussions higher up on this talk page). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This is now in progress. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Can an admin copy over the sandbox? An update is included for compatibility with {{Infobox historic site}}, which is now meta-compatible. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This changes the template from outputting a table cell to outputting a div. While you may have adjusted {{Infobox historic site}} for this behavior, have you adjusted everything else that uses this template? To examine this requested edit, I looked at the first artice from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Designation, which happens to use {{Infobox religious building}}, and it seems any instances of that template that make use of this one that template will break if this edit were to be made. Anomie 04:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, good catch Anomie. There are a few templates which use this one (see [1]). What is your rationale for changing to a div? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about that. I wasn't aware that other infoboxes use this template. The rationale for the change to a div was that when an infobox is made meta-compatible, simply adding a row is no longer possible. A div (or some other block element) must be used instead. In my opinion, all the other infoboxes that use this template should be made meta-compatible as well.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the modifications you made in January to {{Infobox historic site}} have not been reverted, I have copied these updates from Template:Designation/sandbox to Template:Designation/divbox. Since this appears to now be a permanent change, it should no longer go through a sandbox page. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Scheduled Monuments[edit]

Can we have a designation for Scheduled monuments in England and Wales? There appears to be almost 20,000 of them. I'm not sure what colour it should be, but if nobody has a better suggestion how about a light purple? (just because I kind of like it). While I'm on the subject, how about one for the Heritage at Risk register, about 5,700 of those, red being the obvious colour? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Can the designation template be improved?[edit]

Hi, I've recently been working on some articles that are listed as New Zealand Historic Places Trust buildings. I've noticed that the designation template used is very visually dominating in an infobox and rather simplistic for what should be a feature for the reader? An example is: The Colonial Cottage Museum, where the bold blue border is totally overbearing, and it doesn't stand for anything either?? What if the template was redesigned to show a small logo of say the New Zealand Historic Places Trust on the left with an italic text description, and a light background colour. This would then attract the reader to that part of the infobox, the logo would mean something to readers of that country, and it wouldn't dominate the infobox either. Can this be done? I'm happy to work on it. Thanks. Rudolph89 (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but there are a couple of problems with that proposal. First, background colours are out - see the lengthy discussions above. Second, we do not have freely-licensed logos for most of the historic designations handled by this template, and we would have no fair use justification to use any of them in this template. The logo for NZ HPT that we are using on Deep web, for example, is fair use. I think if you find the colour overwhelming, the possible solution would be to ask that the colour assigned to NZ HPT be a lighter shade of blue (note some of the pastel-type colours that some of the other designations are using). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok so background colours are taken out of the equation. But I thought most/all logos are fair use, because they are the only image that visually represent a company/organisation. Using a logo from a heritage organisation I think then is relevant to an article of a building that is acknowledged by that organisation. By having a quick look through some articles that have historic deignations, there appears to be a poor uptake of the current designation template? - Correct me if I'm wrong on that. I think if this template had visual meaning it would encourage far greater use.Rudolph89 (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
My experience is that the use of copyrighted logos in circumstances such as these is seen as being more decorative than anything else, and have been found in the past to fail fair use criterion #8. It's one thing to argue that a logo is essential to helping a reader understand the NZ HPT in the context of an article on the NZ HPT, but it becomes quite a stretch to convince anyone that a small version of the logo is essential to a reader's understanding of a site like the Colonial Cottage. For example, I know that an icon based on the Parks Canada logo was deleted (did not meet fair use criteria) from lists dealing with National Historic Sites of Canada, even though Parks Canada is the agency that administers the NHSC program and actually manages many of the sites. I'm not telling you not to try, but I am just predicting that you would not have much success.

I think the poor uptake is dependent on the type of designation -- it's a relatively new template, and I am not sure that all groups of users know it exists. As per the doc that accompanies the template, there is an existing visual meaning - the colour corresponds to the individual designation. For example, France's Monuments historiques use the blue colour from the French flag, Canada uses red, etc. I presume that the current blue used for NZ HPT is intended to replicate the blue in the NZ flag. It's not perfect, but it's not bad. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Protected Monuments in India[edit]

Hello! I have recently noticed that this project does not cover monuments of India. Monuments of India can be classified into two categories: Centrally Protected Monuments and State Protected Monuments. While Centrally Protected Monuments are covered by Archaeological Survey of India, State Protected Monuments are protected by their respective states. So, just wanted to know if someone will add these two categories to this template or I can add these on my own? If this can be done, I will be happy to become a part of the project and cover as many monuments as possible. Thanks. Vishal14K 05:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Vishal14K | Talk

NYCL colors[edit]

The dark blue type against dark red background of the NYC Landmark bar is very difficult to read. Also the "red=Big Apple" doesn't seem like the best possible reason for a choice of color. Since NYC's official colors are Blue and Orange, what are the chances of using these two colors instead? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm really baffled at the color choices for this template. Scrolling through the examples, at least half them are unreadable and a good number of them are dark blue text on a dark blue background. This is pretty ridiculous, especially since the template documentation talks about how important accessibility is. Of the 72 colors used by this template, only 35 meet the most lenient possible accessibility criteria for color contrast (WCAG 2 AA Compliant) which is required by the Accessibility guidelines. That's less than half! Kaldari (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I replaced all the non-compliant colors with light blue. Feel free to improve further. Kaldari (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the change, the contrast is certainly much better. I'm not an admin, so I can't make any further changes myself. I gather that the text has to be light blue? If that's the case, do you think there would be sufficient contrast if the bar was a dark orange, as in the NYC flag? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, the entire exercise of trying to choose colors that represent specific regions is somewhat absurd. There are only a small number of colors that have adequate contrast with the color of our links - they are all very light pastel colors and none of them are inherently associated with any particular places. I would suggest just choosing one of the following colors at random:
#FFE978
#DACAA5
#CDE5B2
#BFFFBF
#B2E5CD
#A5CADA
#A8BDEC
#FFC0CB
Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The first would be fine, FFE153. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
All set. Kaldari (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Much better as far as I'm concerned, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, this template does not use background colours but borders. I am not sure what the issue is.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you are thinking of a different template. See the documentation at Template:Designation. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
What I am saying is that this change has messed up Template:Designation list. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that the colors in this template are most commonly used as background-colors. Obviously, we can't have dark blue as a background color for dark blue link text, and dark red (NYC's previous color) isn't much better. I'd be happy to fix the Canadian colors, if you'd like to suggest any colors from the choices above. Otherwise, Template:Designation list should choose a different template to base it's colors on. I imagine the entire reason that template is using color borders instead of backgrounds is due to the rather random assortment of garish colors that this template was using before. Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the Canadian colors to be similar to the original colors, but lighter. Hope that works. Kaldari (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's nice of you to do that. It comes out pink, which isn't quite right, but the effort is appreciated. In any event, you made a valid point that the designation list ought to be relying on a different colour template. I agree, since what works best for borders does not necessarily work well for backgrounds, and vice versa. So I created Template:Designation/colour2. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Request restoration of U.S. colors[edit]

Would someone please edit NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK DISTRICT|NRHP-NHLD|NHLD = #A8EDEF to show as NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK DISTRICT|NRHP-NHLD|NHLD = #00CED1 instead,

and please change |NATIONAL HISTORIC RESERVE|NRHP-NHR|NHR = #A8EDEF to |NATIONAL HISTORIC RESERVE|NRHP-NHR|NHR = #E9967A

and please change |NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE|NRHP-NHS|NHS = #A8EDEF to |NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE|NRHP-NHS|NHS = #5F9EA0

This will undo the impact upon U.S. historic sites (obliterating distinctions of color in 2000+ list-articles) of editor Kaldari's edit of August 11. That edit is under discussion at Deep web talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Standard colors; a replacement change which picks other colors is certainly possible to emerge. Although expert Dudemanfellabra's recent long comment indicates no change like Kaldari's was needed at all. At any rate, the August 11 change obliterated necessary distinctions and needs to be undone. --doncram 01:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please make the required changes to Template:Designation/colour/sandbox and reactivate the request? (Please take care to first syncronise with live template to avoid unintentional changes.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

National-level NRHP color should not be applied to lower-level U.S. state and local designations[edit]

Could someone please change the color designation under Template:Designation (Supported designations#United States) for "Alabama Landmark" from the light blue NRHP color (#A8EDEF) to the light green #CDE5B2. The current color is completely useless, since the only two historic designations found in the state are the national-level NRHP or the state-level Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage, with some sites on both. With both designations having the same color, there is no contrast between NRHP and Alabama Landmark when both are used in Infobox historic site.

P.S. The same would apply to other U.S. state or local-level designations that are currently using the NRHP color also, such as Michigan State Historic Site, Mississippi Landmark, and St. Louis Landmark, although no one has raised any objections to these that I have seen.

I have updated these four to new, acceptable colors at Template:Designation/colour/sandbox. Any help appreciated. Altairisfar (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, it is much appreciated. Altairisfar (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Documentation needs updating[edit]

Within the next few weeks, I plan to update the template documentation to reflect that changes made in the past two years, including the modifications made to show borders instead of backgrounds, and the addition of Template:Designation/colour2 for alternate colour schemes for these borders. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now added these changes, including displaying the bordered versions on the "Supported designations" pages. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A color scheme that scales[edit]

A long time ago, this template was created with the idea that we could assign a different color to every historic landmark list. Needless to say, we quickly ran out of colors. Rather than reusing a limited pallet of distinct, pleasant colors that provided good contrast with text, we started using garish primary colors or dark colors that made the text difficult to read. We also explored every possible shade of yellow, green, and blue, despite the fact that no human could realistically identify a list by its minutely lighter shade of yellow (or whatever new color was being used). A few months ago, I went through every color in the list, tested it against our accessibility guidelines, and changed the colors that needed to be lightened. This effort was greeted with almost universal hostility. Strangely, many folks were completely willing to sacrifice the aesthetics and readability of Deep web for the fictional advantage of people being able to quickly identify a list based on its unique color.

As this list continues to grow, we're going to run into this problem again, and we're going to have more people complaining that either the new colors are awful or they are too close to existing colors. Rather than continuing with this impossible and fruitless goal of giving all lists distinct colors, why don't we assign colors to designation levels rather than designation lists?

This would have several benefits:

  • All of the colors would be completely distinct from each other
  • Users would be able to reliably infer some information based on the color
  • We wouldn't have to keep inventing new colors or resorting to colors that don't work well
  • We wouldn't have to resort to using outline colors in some templates and background colors in other templates

My proposal would be:

Global lists
National/regional lists
State/provincial lists
Local/city lists

Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"Rather than continuing with this impossible and fruitless goal of giving all lists distinct colors, why don't we assign colors to designation levels rather than designation lists?" You lost me with the lingo. I'm sort of new to the project, but I'm not sure what you're describing. Can you offer some examples of the problem this will fix?ProfReader (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Different lingo: the proposal is to standardise infobox headers across Deep web to five colours instead of the current flamboyant usage of hundreds of colours, which thus loose meaning. --ELEKHHT 04:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree there are too many colours, and often without a good reason, however I can see that for editors and readers strictly involved in particular areas it makes sense to have several "shades" of a colour for finer differentiation. Myself I got used to the different colours of IUCN categories (all global) and don't feel the need to replace them with one colour, in part because it is a simple hierarchical system. On the other hand having a different colour for national designations for each of the 200 or so countries, clearly doesn't work for me, and fail to see any utility, so I would support a simplification there either using a limited number of colours (one for each continent) or simply the same colour for all countries. --ELEKHHT 04:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I thought we solved the readability problems with the bordered versions, as first proposed in the 2011 discussion? This has been deployed on {{infobox historic site}} and others. The primary holdout seems to be {{infobox nrhp}}. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, Template:Designation/colour, the sub-template that lists the individual colors, is not just confined to infoboxes. It is currently being used as a meta-template for a number of list articles like List of works by Francis Goodwin and navboxes like Template:Lancashire churches that list and categorize the multiple national designations for the UK or for the United States. So I cannot see how you could limit it to just one single color for national/regional lists without compromising these list articles that use color as a supplemental aid (as permitted by WP:COLOURS and other such guidelines). Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
This seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. First, I agree with Zzyzx11 that the readability problem was solved with the adoption of bordered versions (which I believe, correct me if I am wrong, all use Template:Designation/colour2), so the only compelling reason to adopt washed-out pastels across the board is gone. Second, I believe the better visual clues for Deep web readers are colours that where possible relate to the jurisdiction in question, rather than arbitrarily imposing dull blue on national designations, something vaguely pink on subnational designations, etc. As we work to improve the cultural heritage articles for sites in Canada, we are using Canadian red for national designations, blue for provincial designations in Quebec, etc. and will expand that across the country as the work continues. I can't imagine how changing that so that national designations in Canada use the same colour as national designations in Slovenia helps anyone. Admittedly, it would serve to meet the desire for consistency among some Deep web contributors, but I don't see making any real difference to readers (in fact, it would just replace helpful visual aids with less helpful ones). If you want to standardize the colour scheme for the one template still using backgrounds, that's fine (although Zzyzx11 seems to have identified some valid problems even with that), but otherwise I am not in favour of this. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the points raised by Zzyzx11 and Skeezix1000. I don't see the current scheme as having any real issues. When you take into account all of the sub-templates that use the designation template, a change as drastic as what is proposed seems overly simplistic. Altairisfar (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
My sole experience with the use of colors for historic designations is the USA, where different types of designations get different colors. As such, I'm concerned about the issues that Zzyzx raises; how are we supposed to keep US designations separate from each other if we impose a single color for all national-level designations in all countries? If you're not suggesting this, please accept my apology for misreading what you're saying. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It is possible to convey information with text you know :P Kaldari (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
We use these colors in tables where there's not room for text. Since you confirm that I understood rightly, I strongly oppose this proposal. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
There is logic to this proposal. Look at Statue of Liberty: five designations, including two using yellow bordered boxes. This suggests a linkage, but they are not related. One is global, one is from a US state. The most vivid designation, in red, is actually the lowest-ranked (city). Meanwhile, two federal designations look like they have nothing in common, because one is blue and another is cream. This augurs for consistency.
Also, the red box for New York City and others are so bold, they dominate and distract, and almost look like warnings. Can their borders be narrowed? Yoho2001 (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional designation[edit]

Is Deep web talk:WikiProject Historic sites still the appropriate place for requests such as this one, as I notice that the last few requests for new designations over there have not received any responses. I'm not being impatient, but rather it always seemed like an odd place to be making such requests (as opposed to here). Thanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That talk page seems to be not very active. The last few additions have been the result of edit-protected requests on this talk page below. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

New designations color - admin help[edit]

I have added two new designations: Ramsar Wetland of International Importance and U.S. National Natural Landmark to the Template:Designation/text. But I was hoping and admin could add these to the color page Template:Designation/colour and someone could help choose appropriate colors. I make use of designations in protected area infoboxes, and adding these two designations is essential. At WikiProject Protected areas Ramsar Wetlands are considered of high importance (alongside WHS), so we need a way to place this in a visible position through a designation in the infobox. The NNL designation is in similar position to Ramsar. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please add the following designations to {{Designation/colour}}:
Global:
|RAMSAR WETLAND|RAMSAR|RAMSAR WETLAND OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE      = #8DE3D2
National/Regional:
|NATIONAL NATURAL LANDMARK|NNL                                         = #ACE1AF
Please also change the color for IUCN CATEGORY IA from the default #A8EDEF to #E7BFAD to make it appear more similar to {{Designation/colour2}} (it appears to be an oversight). Cacw (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
DoneMr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Santa Monica and Riverside request[edit]

Can an admin please change the colors for the Santa Monica and Riverside designations in {{Designation/colour}}. The colors I previously chose do not meet the WCAG 2.0's AA level for accessibility requirements. I adjusted the colors so that they are the same color but meet accessibility requirements. Please change:

Santa Monica
from to
#DDA0DD #D8AFE2
Riverside
from to
#BBB2FF #A8BDEC

Cacw (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

New U.S. state designations[edit]

I added designations for some U.S. states and a city to {{Designation/colour/sandbox}}. Could an admin please copy it over to {{Designation/colour}} for me please. Thanks Cacw (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

DoneMr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Arizona Register of Historic Sites[edit]

I've used a 'fake' bar in the infobox on Rittenhouse Elementary School. The color is Old Gold #CFB53B , as that is one of Arizona's state colors (the blue looked horrible against the NRHP bar). If an ARHP bar gets added, please edit the article. Thanks. :) Revent (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is currently no separate, specific article on Arizona Register of Historical Places. Therefore, it cannot be added here at this time. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 August 2014[edit]

I have proposed adding the Queensland Heritage Register as a designation on Deep web talk:WikiProject Historic sites over a week ago and had no adverse reaction. I would therefore like to proceed with the edits to make it so. Within the "State/Provincial designations", I would like to add the entry:

|QUEENSLAND HERITAGE REGISTER|QHR = #73182C

Kerry (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

 Donexaosflux Talk 18:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but the result isn't quite what I expected. I realise now that I misunderstood the role of colour and colour2 from the description. I thought 'colour' was the one used in the infobox historic site template, but I see it is actually 'colour2'. I can see that I need 'colour' to be much much lighter so the text on top of it can be read. Could it be changed to #FFC0CB (the pink shown as one of the "accessible" colours) please (I have changed colour2 myself). Sorry about that. Kerry (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Designations for the Philippines[edit]

May I be assisted to create designations for the Philippines? -- Namayan (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We actually have several classifications:
  • World Heritage Sites
  • National Cultural Treasures
  • National Historical Landmarks
  • National Historical Shrines
  • National Historical Monuments
  • Important Cultural Properties
  • Heritage Zones

Template-protected edit request on 6 August 2016[edit]

Please add the following line to Template:Designation/colour within the state/provincial designations section:

TEXAS STATE ANTIQUITIES LANDMARK|TEXAS|TSAL|USTX = #DACAA5

Please see the infobox of Jeff Davis County Courthouse (Texas) as an example of how this may be deployed. This change would give the new designation the same coloration consistent with the existing Recorded Texas Historic Landmark designation.

Fortguy (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fortguy: The line |RECORDED TEXAS HISTORIC LANDMARK|TEXAS|RTHL|USTX = #DACAA5 already exists on the template. Your request is simply to add the alias TEXAS STATE ANTIQUITIES LANDMARK then, correct? — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 03:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Done. I noticed that you already added the line at {{Designation/text}}. Ping if there are any issues. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 03:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Ireland[edit]

Would it be possible to add the Record of Monuments and Places, for sites in the Republic of Ireland? Only 761 National Monuments have a number, all other sites (many thousands) are listed on the RMP. Sheila1988 (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Sheila1988:! Take a look at Template:Designation#Adding new designations. Basically, you need to know the answers to the questions there and ask at Deep web talk:WikiProject Historic sites. My only advice would be to pick a colour that is quite different to the orange colour used by National Monument of Ireland so there is no confusion between them (there is a list of suggested colours, how about green #BFFFBF given it's the Emerald Isle?}. I would not expect any real problem with your request. I set up the Queensland Heritage Register in this way a few years ago. See my request Deep web talk:WikiProject Historic sites#New designation for the Queensland Heritage Register here. As you will see nobody commented at all, which, after a short wait, I decided meant it was OK to proceed. Here's an example of the Infobox historic place for the Queensland Heritage Register using that designation. Kerry (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

NYCL[edit]

Can the bordered NYCL color match the banner color, which is #FFE978? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Do you have a conflict of interest? I don't see any sign of it in this post. In order for a user with template rights to accept your request, you must declare your relationship with any companies involved in your request. If not, I suggest using the {{edit template-protected}} template instead. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Oooops! Sorry about that. Thanks for the catch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done. For future reference you can edit Template:Designation/colour2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) yourself. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thank you, I couldn't quite figure that out from the docs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 September 2017: Request for new designations - Australia[edit]

Looking only at Australia, this request deals firstly with various "National designations", and secondly with various "State/Provincial designations", as discussed on Talk:WikiProject Historic sites.

Note: Marking as answered. Request is in the next section. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

National designations[edit]

I have proposed adding the following designations of:

In the absence of any comments to the contrary, I would therefore like to proceed with the edits to make it so. Within the "National designations", I would like to add the following entries:

|AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL HERITAGE LIST|AUSTRALIA|ANHL = #CDE5B2
|COMMONWEALTH HERITAGE LIST|AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH HERITAGE LIST|COMMONWEALTH|CWLTHL = #FFE978
|REGISTER NATIONAL ESTATE|REGISTER OF THE NATIONAL ESTATE|AUSTRALIAN REGISTER OF THE NATIONAL ESTATE|RNE = #FFC0CB

State/Provincial designations[edit]

I have proposed adding the following designations of:

In the absence of any comments to the contrary, I would therefore like to proceed with the edits to make it so. Within the "State/Provincial designations", I would like to add the following entries:

|NEW SOUTH WALES STATE HERITAGE REGISTER|NSW STATE HERITAGE REGISTER|NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE REGISTER|NSW HERITAGE REGISTER|NSW|NSW SHR = #A8BDEC
|SOUTH AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE REGISTER|SA HERITAGE REGISTER|SOUTH AUSTRALIA|SAHR = #A8BDEC
|TASMANIAN HERITAGE REGISTER|TASMANIA|TASHR = #B2E5CD
|VICTORIAN HERITAGE REGISTER|VICTORIA (AUSTRALIA)|VICHR = #BFFFBF
|WESTERN AUSTRALIA STATE REGISTER OF HERITAGE PLACES|WA STATE REGISTER OF HERITAGE PLACES|STATE REGISTER OF HERITAGE PLACES|WASRHP|WESTERN AUSTRALIA|SRHP = #DACAA5

Rangasyd (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I can't see any issues with this code, so I fully support this being put into the template. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Need Template Editor Assitance[edit]

Per the above request, and discussion on the main WikiProject historic sites talk page. I have collated the needed additional code at User:Aguyintobooks/Essay/Historic sites template code. Please review and include it in the template. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I have made the inclusion in the "text" subpage. However, I do not have the rights to make the changes to the other subpages. Thanks for your diligence. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: Template:Designation/colour2 is not protected. — JJMC89(T·C) 20:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... It makes no sense to me that one is protected and another not, considering these 3 go together as basically the same template. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I've sent colour2 to RfPP after reading this thread. Hopefully then the request will be answered. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 November 2017[edit]

Could you please add the designation for Brisbane Heritage Register as described at Deep web talk:WikiProject Historic sites#New designation for the Brisbane Heritage Register. Nobody has raised any objection in over 2 weeks.

Thanks Kerry (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Kerry (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: Please put this in terms of a specific edit to make to the template. There appear to be five fields we need data for, and someone's more likely to act on this promptly if you supply the marked up values for each.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  07:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I would have done so but the code for the template is so heavily protected so I cannot even *read* the template! Tell me their names and I will tell you the values (although having done this before, I am pretty sure I have provided all the values in my request on Deep web talk:WikiProject Historic sites#New designation for the Brisbane Heritage Register, as I copied what I did previously. Kerry (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I will paste the full text of this template below, I will note there are other templates that actually need to be edited to achieve this, if you leave me a note on my talk page with the desired color I will do some code for it, I already added three or four designations to this. Dysklyver 08:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Correction: I just noticed that you have asked for #BFFFBF on previous discussion, so I will use that. Dysklyver 09:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
{{#if:{{{1<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}|
{{!}} colspan=2 align=center style="border:4px solid {{#if:{{{delisted|}}}
  |#ddd
  |{{Designation/colour|{{{1}}}}}
 }};"{{!}}'''{{#if:{{{delisted|}}}
  |Former 
 }}{{Designation/text|{{{1}}}}}'''
}}<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

code now made[edit]

Ok I have made the required code and put it at: User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Essay/Brisbane Heritage Register, please insert it into the templates. Pinging @Nthep: as the person who dealt with my last request. Dysklyver 09:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done, as always please check for errors. Nthep (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Dysklyver 14:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Philippine designations[edit]

Ping: @Hariboneagle927: who asked at Deep web_talk:WikiProject_Historic_sites#Philippine_historic_site_designations for these to be added.
& @Nthep: as the person who I keep asking to add these things :)
As previously I have put the code on a userpage - User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Essay/Historic sites template code 3 to be added to the relevant subpages. Dysklyver 09:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver:  Done except that I had to tweak the suggested "Explanatory notes" since "National Cultural Treasures" and "National Historical Landmarks" didn't match the values being added to the switch statements in the other templates. Also, all the other values in {{Designation/text}} have a wikilink. Is there a good target for these new entries? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
"National Historical Landmarks" no link, and National Cultural Treasures has got one. Dysklyver 08:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: Added, thank you. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Template protected edit request[edit]

Can someone please add the following designation for National Wild and Scenic Rivers System:

Template:Designation/text

|NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM|NWSRS = [[National Wild and Scenic Rivers System]]
|NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER|NWSR = [[National Wild and Scenic Rivers System|National Wild and Scenic River]]

Template:Designation/colour

|NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM|NWSRS|NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER|NWSR = #90B8F1

Template:Designation/colour2

|NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM|NWSRS|NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER|NWSR = #90B8F1

Antelopez (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 DoneRP88 (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Also updated {{Designation/Supported designations/United States}} to include your additions (used by the {{Designation}} documentation). —RP88 (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 November 2019 - Russia[edit]

Please add Russia to the National designations. The full official name of the register (translated into English) is "Unified State Register of Cultural Heritage Objects (Historical and Cultural Monuments) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation". It is nationwide, established under 2002 legislation, and has more than 30,000 entries. The en.wiki article about the register is Russian cultural heritage register. The text of the link should read "Cultural Heritage of Russia". The background colour should be #A8BDEC and the bordered div colour should be #3A4294. Call names should be Cultural Heritage of Russia; Russian Cultural Heritage; Russia. Thanks in anticipation. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Azerbaijani designation[edit]

Can you add the National Registration of Historical Monuments in Azerbaijan? I tried adding it via {{designation/Supported designations/row|t={{{t|}}}|Azerbaijan|[[Azerbaijan]]|~500|National Registration of Historical Monuments in Azerbaijan; NRHMA; Azərbaycandakı tarixi abidələrin milli qeydiyyatı; ATAMQ}} on this page, but I found no success. The color was given in the Azerbaijani version of this template, it was "#00ff00". --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€(hail sithis!) 12:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Federal Heritage Building template creation[edit]

Can we please create a template for "Classified Federal Heritage Buildings", per https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/culture/dfhd ? It's basically to protect buildings owned by the Government of Canada, such as the Dominion Public Building until it was sold or the Senate of Canada Building? We already have templates for National Historic Sites and Heritage Railway stations, but we need the Federal Heritage Buildings template. Oaktree b (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 March 2019[edit]

Please remove the line <noinclude>{{pp-template|small=yes}}</noinclude> - protection templates are automatically handled by the documentation page. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89(T·C) 07:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please add the following designation for National Wild and Scenic Rivers System:

Template:Designation/text

|NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM|NWSRS = [[National Wild and Scenic Rivers System]]
|NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER|NWSR = [[National Wild and Scenic Rivers System|National Wild and Scenic River]]

Template:Designation/colour

|NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM|NWSRS|NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER|NWSR = #90B8F1

Template:Designation/colour2

|NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM|NWSRS|NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER|NWSR = #90B8F1

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2019; Australia: New South Wales Heritage Database[edit]

Can someone please add the following designation for New South Wales Heritage Database:

Template:Designation/text

|NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE DATABASE|NSW HERITAGE DATABASE|NSWHD|NSW HD = [[New South Wales Heritage Database]]<br/>(Local Government Register)

Template:Designation/colour

|NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE DATABASE|NSW HERITAGE DATABASE|NSWHD|NSW HD = #FFFFFF

Template:Designation/colour2

|NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE DATABASE|NSW HERITAGE DATABASE|NSWHD|NSW HD = #A8BDEC

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangasyd (talkcontribs) 12:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 Question: @Rangasyd: Why are the chosen colours different to those for the NSW Heritage Register? Sceptre (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, I really don't care what the colours are. However, a different colour would distinguish it from the the New South Wales Heritage Register. The same colours can be used, if that's a barrier. Having said that, I suggest a different (white) background, to create a clear distinction. Rangasyd (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I've made the changes. If anyone disagrees with these colour choices, we can change later — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Can its location be moved at Template:Designation#State/provincial/local designations? The NSWHD is not a heritage register for a state or territory of Australia. It's a heritage register for local government in Australia (in New South Wales). So it should be placed immediately below the Brisbane Heritage Register. Many thanks in advance. Rangasyd (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rangasyd: that is a documentation page and you edit it yourself at Template:Designation/Supported designations/State. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 March 2020[edit]

In "Pittsburgh Landmark — PHLF" please change the spaced em dash to an unspaced em dash, per the linked MOS subsection. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC) DocWatson42 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

To DocWatson42:  Not done: to be consistent with other similar entries, that was changed instead to a spaced endash, which is also compliant with the linked MOS. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: Spaced en dashes are not my preferred style, but I understand why you did it. Thank you for following up. —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
You're very welcome, Doc! My own personal pref. is actually the spaced endash; however, my pref. is overshadowed by consistency, which I believe is covered in the MOS. When an article, template, etc., uses the unspaced emdash throughout, and an editor throws in a spaced endash, if I catch it I will change that endash to an unspaced emdash. Consistency is key. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 14:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)