| Revision as of 00:21, 20 February 2024 editAPK (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers39,268 edits →neighborhood/historic district: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:46, 20 February 2024 edit undoRevelationDirect (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users173,562 edits →Website of the current occupant that just so happens to be occupying a NRHP property: replyTag: CDNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| :To me, it's a matter of notability. I don't think whatever fly-by-night business that happens to be occupying a property warrants inclusion in an article at all; however, if the business is a notable one, or if it's been an occupant long enough to have accumulated local/regional press, then it likely would be mentioned in the article's prose. At that point, depending on the degree of notability, it would then warrant an external link and possibly the link in the infobox. ] (]) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) | :To me, it's a matter of notability. I don't think whatever fly-by-night business that happens to be occupying a property warrants inclusion in an article at all; however, if the business is a notable one, or if it's been an occupant long enough to have accumulated local/regional press, then it likely would be mentioned in the article's prose. At that point, depending on the degree of notability, it would then warrant an external link and possibly the link in the infobox. ] (]) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :I agree with DrOrinScrivello on when to include the link and, looking at articles I created, I've put them both places. But maybe the infobox makes more sense if it is the original organization (like the church website) and the EL section makes sense if it's not the original purpose but a long-term occupant (like ]). This is just a thought; I don't think either location is "wrong". ] (]) 01:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == neighborhood/historic district == | == neighborhood/historic district == | ||
Revision as of 01:46, 20 February 2024
Shortcut | National Register of Historic Places Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | WikiProject National Register of Historic Places was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 28 September 2009. |
| WikiProject National Register of Historic Places was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 17 October 2011. |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
|
Good article reassessment for Ben's Chili Bowl
Ben's Chili Bowl has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
New National Historic Landmarks
We have a new raft of National Historic Landmarks designated. Department of Interior press release and NPS weekly list with designation details. Of interesting note is the de-designation of the SS Ste. Claire, which appears to retain NRHP listing status despite its NHL-significant losses. Magic♪piano 00:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
By the way, if contributors want to help propagating this information into WP's lists, the project's weekly maintenance guide has information what needs doing. It's rather more than just adding and removing regular NRHP listings. Magic♪piano 00:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
FAR for Monte Ne
I have nominated Monte Ne for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 04:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Captain Nathan Hale (statue)
The article has been about the statue in Washington, D.C., even before my overhaul of the page. Would it make more sense to change the title to Captain Nathan Hale statue (Washington, D.C.) or something along those lines? There are several copies, and some can be seen in the article's gallery. APK hi :-) (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @APK Perhaps Statue of Nathan Hale (Washington, D.C.). Any interest in creating Statue of Nathan Hale (Chicago), etc, for the other copies? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Another Believer Yeah I like your suggestion better. I'm currently working on American Revolution Statuary (8 down, 6 more to go). I'll try to gather sources for the Chicago version when I'm done with my current project. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Website of the current occupant that just so happens to be occupying a NRHP property
The question is, should the website of the current tenant/business of NRHP buildings be included as EL or in infobox as the website? Graywalls (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- To me, it's a matter of notability. I don't think whatever fly-by-night business that happens to be occupying a property warrants inclusion in an article at all; however, if the business is a notable one, or if it's been an occupant long enough to have accumulated local/regional press, then it likely would be mentioned in the article's prose. At that point, depending on the degree of notability, it would then warrant an external link and possibly the link in the infobox. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with DrOrinScrivello on when to include the link and, looking at articles I created, I've put them both places. But maybe the infobox makes more sense if it is the original organization (like the church website) and the EL section makes sense if it's not the original purpose but a long-term occupant (like here). This is just a thought; I don't think either location is "wrong". RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
neighborhood/historic district
If a neighborhood's boundaries are also the same boundaries for its historic district, should the name of the article be just the neighborhood's name or the name of the historic district? APK hi :-) (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- As a rule of thumb, if a historic district is mostly or entirely synonymous with a feature, they can be represented in the same article (with naming priority given to the locale's name, not the NRHP listing name). For example, some locales (like Deadwood, South Dakota) have HDs encompassing the entire site. It depends, I think, on coverage. If coverage of the historic district itself is far too extensive to fit comfortably, it can be split in that case. In almost every case, though, it's enough to merge them and create a redirect for the NRHP listing name. Template:Infobox NRHP can be embedded in the place infobox and relevant sections created as needed. – TCMemoire 17:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. APK hi :-) (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)